We are nearing the end of the series. The first message this Sunday was ‘What is Christian Liberty?‘ Our text was Gal 5.13. I discussed the nature of Christian liberty as a spiritual possession of the believer, granted at conversion, breaking the bondage to sin and the sin nature and thus providing the freedom to actually perform works that please God. Taking our admonition from Gal 5.13, we looked at the notion of the misuse of liberty as an occasion to the flesh, indulging self because of our new freedom. Such an attitude is contrary to Christianity. It is certainly contrary to the message of the apostles. From misuse, we turned to the productive use of Christian liberty – by love serving one another. The impact of living a life as a slave to righteousness is far greater than the impact of the life lived as a slave to sin. Sin binds in ever increasing entanglements. Righteousness frees unto limitless glory in the eternal life of perfect fellowship with God. I closed with a quote from Alexander Maclaren:

“Liberty is not exemption from commandment, but harmony with commandment. Whoever finds that what is his duty is his delight is enfranchised. We are at liberty when we walk within the limits of the gospel; and they who delight to do the law are free in obedience; free from the tyranny of their own lust, passions, and inclinations; free from domination of men and opinion and common customs and personal habits.”

Alexander Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture, James 1:25, quoted by George M. Cowan, “The Prohibitions of Grace”, Bibliotheca Sacra (Dallas, TX: Dallas Theological Seminary, 1946; 2002). 103:232.

Our afternoon service continued the series with a message entitled “Disciples of the King“, from Mt 28.18-20. The imperative in this passage is ‘make disciples’. The process of making disciples involves three activities: going, baptizing [which I take as the culmination of evangelism, i.e., soul-winning], and teaching. The activities are given in chronological order (you must go first) and also in priority: merely going is not enough. Tourists are on the go. Disciple-makers go and work. The ultimate end of the commission, however, is not baptism, it is teaching to observe [obey] the commandments of Christ. This is the Christian mission. The notion that Christianity is bereft of commandments is an anti-Christian notion. But even more importantly, the commission is given by The King: ‘All authority in heaven and earth is given unto me.’ (v. 18). The Christian mission is to make disciples for The King. Two points closed the message:

1. This King is perfect
2. This King’s subjects love to serve Him

~~~~

I hope these thoughts are a blessing. I hope to conclude this series in one or two more messages.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

The media of course thinks Christians who have rules are fundamentalists. In a review of a book called People in Glass Houses, the Sydney Morning Herald identifies a Pentecostal church in Australia as such. (Another bloggish sort of review is found at a site called Web Diary.

The woman who wrote the book appears to be an unbeliever, but what is striking to me is how much many of her complaints carry the same anti-authority attitude that many ‘young fundamentalists’ manifest. Granted, a great gulf is fixed between her beliefs and the beliefs of young fundies. Don’t get sidetracked by her infidelity – notice the attitudes and the complaints. Are they so different?

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

The next message in our series on legalism is prompted by a section in David Hesselgrave’s paper, referenced earlier, where he begins: ‘As for lawlessness, in the case of born-again Christians, it is an impossibility.’

In order to understand what Hesselgrave is saying, you need to gain an understanding of a difficult passage, 1 Jn 3.2-10, and 3.24. The apostle John’s words can be very troubling to the believer, especially words like this: ‘Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God’ (v. 9). As you work through the passage, beginning in v. 2, you will see that John is contrasting two sorts of people: the ones born of God and the ones sinning. Of the ones born of God, he says that we will be like Christ when he appears, but what we are now doesn’t make that apparent. Nevertheless, the believer is purifying himself because of his hope, while the one who is doing sin (the unbeliever) is also doing lawlessness. John makes a point of identifying the sin of the unbeliever as lawlessness. The rest of the passage is repetitive, contrasting the two classes of people and emphasizing the great gulf between them.

The key to understanding the passage is the emphasis concerning the sin that the unbeliever is doing, lawlessness. The unbeliever is ‘without law’, lawless, an outlaw. Hesselgrave illustrates it this way:

“For example, if I were to be stopped for speeding while driving in our neighboring state of Wisconsin, I might be willing to admit that I had indeed been driving 80 miles an hour in a 65mph zone. That would be tantamount to admitting that I am a ‘lawbreaker.’ But suppose I simply disregard the speed limit and respond to the officer by saying something like, ‘You can’t give me a ticket. I’m from Illinois. Your Wisconsin laws don’t apply to me and you have no right to arrest me.’ At that moment, I become something other than just a lawbreaker. I become an ‘outlaw.’ I become ‘lawless.'”

The unbeliever shouts to God, in effect, ‘You can’t tell me what to do.’

On the other hand, the believer, purifying himself, asks God, ‘Please tell me what to do.’

This attitude illustrates the difference between a spiritual heart and a rebellious heart. Our basic human nature chafes at rules, restrictions, directions, and authority. Ultimately, this is a remnant of our enmity with God, even in believers. If we are walking in the Spirit, we will put down the flesh and submit to God, asking for his guidance, direction, and rejoicing in the freedom from sin and guilt that God’s restraints provide.

I concluded the message with this:

“The heart of the Christian is that he is under the Law of Christ. He wants to please Christ, not himself.

“How about you? Who do you want to please?’

UPDATE: Here are the sermon notes if you are interested.
~~~

In our afternoon service, I preached a communion message from Lev 1.1-4. We considered first the context of God’s instruction – not from Mt Sinai, but from the Tabernacle, in the midst of the people, just as God’s final solution to sin is Emmanuel, God with us, the incarnate God among the people, bearing with them and bearing their sin. We considered two concepts required for the sacrifice, the concept of cost and the concept of excellence. We compared that with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish. We considered the consequence: atonement, a substitute dying the death the worshipper deserved. This indeed is what Christ did for us.

Hallelujah, what a Saviour.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

In looking over some old notes [almost 19 years old, to be exact!] I ran across my sermon outlines from a series preached through the book of Leviticus. This was pre-computer, boys and girls, in a day when I had to write my notes with a quill pen. Well, actually, I had progressed to ball-point by then… probably a fine Cross writing instrument as I recall. In those days, I scratched out my notes on whatever paper was handy, crossing things out, drawing arrows, etc., then carefully recopied them so that I could actually read them in the pulpit. Thank the Lord for computers!

The message was entitled “The Slippery Slide” [harking back to a Dr. Custer expression]. In this message I listed the stages of sin (as seen in Genesis).

1. Rebellion – the first stage of sin (Gen 3)
2. Self-justification – the perpetuation of sin (Gen 4.1-15)
3. Repetition – the continuance [sic] in sin (Gen 4.16-24) [should that be ‘continuation of’ instead?]
4. Satiation – the complete dominance of sin (Gen 6.1-8)
5. Rejuvenation – the disregarding of grace by sin (Gen 11.1-9)

As I closed the message, I have this in the notes: Sin is a growth industry. Sin is degenerative. Sin separates man from God, temporally, personally, and eternally. Temporally, because sin separates man from the Ways of God in this age. Personally, because sin separates man from a relationship with God in any age. Eternally, because sin separates man from the Person of God forever.

~~~

As I think about that message, I realize how much I still need daily access to God. The book of Leviticus is all about achieving and maintaining holiness by a continual relationship with God. As a redeemed sinner, the way into the holy of holies is made open by the blood of Christ, but I must enter every day.

May God help you and me to maintain such a walk in the fear of the Lord.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I mentioned these volumes in an earlier post. The books arrived just the other day and I decided to take a quick look at them this morning.

It turns out that these volumes are not intended as commentaries but as devotional expositions of the Gospels, about 12 verses at a time. Ryle wrote them with the view that they might be something read aloud with three possible audiences in view:

He hoped that the works might be “suitable for use at family prayers.”

He also hoped that they may prove “an aid to those who visit the sick and the poor,” commenting that “There is reason to believe that proper books for reading on such occasions are much wanted.”

And last, he trusted that the works might be profitable “for private reading, as a companion to the Gospels.”

On the strength of the first reading (the genealogy of Mt 1.1-17), I would say that Ryle accomplished his purpose. These books appear to be well worth having especially for devotional purposes from a man who doesn’t offer froth in his writing.

Here is a comment on the character of the men in the list and the responsibility of parents to pray for their children:

Observe how many godly parents in this catalogue had wicked and ungodly sons. The names of Roboam, and Joram, and Simon, and Jechonias, should teach us humbling lessons. They had all pious fathers. But they were all wicked men. Grace does not run in families. It needs something more than good examples and good advice to make us children of God. They that are born again are not born of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1.13.) Praying parents should pray night and day, that their children may be born of the Spirit. [Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels, vol 1, pp. 3-4]

Having made the purchase, I thought it a good idea to let you know what it was I had recommended sight unseen. I still recommend it! I am thinking these will be good for me and also for my family as we use them in ‘family prayers’, just as Ryle hoped.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Pastor Chris Anderson is one of my great online friends. I really appreciate his ministry. We most often agree on many matters. But…

But we have a difference on a matter of sanctification. I don’t know if we have wrestled through this on his blog or elsewhere before, but this week I expressed some differences with him on this topic. You can read about it in the comments section of this post.

There are a couple of possible explanations for the difference that might make our difference not much of a difference at all. I could be totally misunderstanding what Chris is saying. Or I could be abysmally inarticulate in attempting to express my point of view. Or both.

There is a particular point of view that Chris seems to be articulating in his post. As I understand it, this view comes from a reading of Piper, Owen, perhaps Edwards, and others. The notion is that the key to sanctification is a sort of mindset of meditation and contemplation on the glories and beauties of God (and of Christ). Somehow, such meditation is supposed to make you so in love with God that you will have less of a desire to sin and hence more victory. [Perhaps I am misstating the case, if so, I’d appreciate clarification.]

Chris quotes someone named Kelly Kapic who is in turn supposed to be quoting Owen, but I haven’t been able to see the Owen quote in context. [If someone has a link, I’d be interested in seeing it.]

So the path forward is not to decrease one’s affections but rather to enlarge them and fill them with ‘heavenly things.’ Here one is not trying to escape the painful realities of this life but rather endeavoring to reframe one’s perspective of life around a much larger canvas that encompasses all of reality. To respond to the distorting nature of sin you must set your affections on the beauty and glory of God, the loveliness of Christ, and the wonder of the gospel: ‘Were our affections filled, taken up, and possessed with these things . . . what access could sin, with its painted pleasures, with its sugared poisons, with its envenomed baits, have unto our souls? Resisting sin, according to this Puritan divine, comes not by deadening your affections but by awakening them to God himself. Do not seek to empty your cup as a way to avoid sin, but rather seek to fill it up with the Spirit of life, so there is no longer room for sin.’

Well…

You can read the back and forth on Chris’ blog. I don’t want to dominate his blog with a long essay from me, so I am going to use my own blog to work through a few points that Chris made in his latest response to me. He can respond wherever he likes, whenever he likes, or not at all if he so chooses.

Here is the last comment from Chris on this:

Don, I can’t pursue this further today. However, your suggestion that meditating on and worshiping Christ isn’t the way of sanctification is mistaken, probably because it compartmentalizes aspects of the Christian life in artificial ways. (This is worship; this is sanctification; etc.) I don’t think that demonstrates a right understanding of either, frankly.

Psalm 115:1-8 and 135:15-18 indicate that our worship greatly influences our character for good or bad–we become like what we worship.

Much more clearly, II Cor. 3:18 teaches that looking at Christ in the Scriptures and meditating on His person and work is the key to being changed into His image through the Spirit’s ministry. I can’t think of a clearer passage on our sanctification. True sanctification and worship are absolutely inseparable.

Some things to consider, anyway.

First, to respond to paragraph 1:

Which comes first, worship or sanctification? I think this is where my comments have been particularly inarticulate. Sanctification produces worship produces sanctification. I am fine with that notion. Meditation is a tool that can and does produce sanctification, as long as meditation is on the right object. I don’t think I am compartmentalising things, just having difficulty expressing my misgivings about statements such as the one quoted.

Now, as to Ps 115 and 135, let’s see what they say before we make statements concerning them:

Ps 115.1-8

NAU Psalm 115:1 Not to us, O LORD, not to us, But to Your name give glory Because of Your lovingkindness, because of Your truth. 2 Why should the nations say, “Where, now, is their God?” 3 But our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases. 4 Their idols are silver and gold, The work of man’s hands. 5 They have mouths, but they cannot speak; They have eyes, but they cannot see; 6 They have ears, but they cannot hear; They have noses, but they cannot smell; 7 They have hands, but they cannot feel; They have feet, but they cannot walk; They cannot make a sound with their throat. 8 Those who make them will become like them, Everyone who trusts in them.

Ps 135.15-18

NAU Psalm 135:15 The idols of the nations are but silver and gold, The work of man’s hands. 16 They have mouths, but they do not speak; They have eyes, but they do not see; 17 They have ears, but they do not hear, Nor is there any breath at all in their mouths. 18 Those who make them will be like them, Yes, everyone who trusts in them.

I assume that it is the assertions of Ps 115.8 and Ps 135.18 upon which Chris bases the notion that our worship “greatly influences our character for good or bad–we become like what we worship.”

First, it must be said that these passages only affirm a sort of ‘negative sanctification’, if any at all. But do these passages actually teach that idolaters will become blinder, dumber, deafer, etc as a process of negative sanctification? The notes of the NET Bible on 135.18 suggest this:

Because the idols are lifeless, they cannot help their worshipers in times of crisis. Consequently the worshipers end up as dead as the gods in which they trust.

I offer this not as proof, but to point out that at least one interpreter looks at the passage and sees it as a reference to the judgement the idolater receives, not the process which he undergoes. [Although I must say that Chris is in good company in his view, John MacArthur declares it an ‘inexorable law’ that you become like what you worship, citing the Ps 135 passage. — Master’s Journal, Spring 1994, p. 15.]

Other commentators see the verse as referring to the dead spirit the idolater possesses, he who thinks he is enlightened by his worship of something other than the true God is in fact in darkness and is as blind, deaf, and dumb as his idol.

Can we turn these passages around and make them say that the converse is also true, that if we will but contemplate the glories of the person of Christ, we will automatically by virtue of such meditation become like Christ?

MacArthur says yes:

If the heathen become like the lifeless gods they worship, how much more like Christ will Christians become, since they have the Holy Spirit working to accomplish that very goal? As they fix their hearts on Christ, they discover their worship has the effect of conforming them to His image…
The Master’s Seminary. (1994; 2002). Master’s Seminary Journal Volume 5 (5:15). Master’s Seminary.

These passages cannot bear this interpretation by themselves, as MacArthur turns quickly to the next passage Chris cited, quoting immediately after his statement above, 2 Cor 3.18.

Chris says:

Much more clearly, II Cor. 3:18 teaches that looking at Christ in the Scriptures and meditating on His person and work is the key to being changed into His image through the Spirit’s ministry. I can’t think of a clearer passage on our sanctification. True sanctification and worship are absolutely inseparable.

All right, let’s look at 2 Cor 3.18:

NAU 2 Corinthians 3:18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.

Does this verse make worship the key for sanctification? Note again my friend Chris’ statement: “looking at Christ … is the key to being changed”. Does the passage actually bear that bold statement?

Look at the context:

NAU 2 Corinthians 3:7 But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory. 10 For indeed what had glory, in this case has no glory because of the glory that surpasses it. 11 For if that which fades away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory. 12 Therefore having such a hope, we use great boldness in our speech, 13 and are not like Moses, who used to put a veil over his face so that the sons of Israel would not look intently at the end of what was fading away. 14 But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ. 15 But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; 16 but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit. [italics mine]

In the passage, what is veiled? From what is the veil taken away when we turn to the Lord? Is it not the Law, i.e., the written revelation of God? What are the glories by which we are transformed but the glories found in the Word?

Meditate in order to grow, yes, but meditate in the Word.

Worship in order to grow, yes, but worship according to the Word.

Am I making too fine a point? I admit that I react to Piperism. I believe that Piper is mistaken on this point and that he has misled many by his mistake. I believe that the emphasis on a mystical experience with Christ is no better a means of sanctification than the Keswickian ‘Let go and let God.’

The Bible pattern is found in Romans 6-8 and Ephesians 4-6 and Colossians 3, among others.

In the end, it is the hint of mysticism that I react to. It is not that we shouldn’t meditate and worship, of course we should. But sanctification is not a simple process and I find it dangerous to suggest to young people that if they will just love the Lord enough, they don’t have to sweat sanctification. And isn’t that what the Kapic quote is saying?

So the path forward is not to decrease one’s affections…

…rather to enlarge them and fill them with ‘heavenly things.’…

…not trying to escape the painful realities of this life…

…rather endeavoring to reframe one’s perspective of life…

To respond to the distorting nature of sin you must set your affections on the beauty and glory of God, the loveliness of Christ, and the wonder of the gospel…

Resisting sin … comes not by deadening your affections but by awakening them to God himself.

Yes, worship, but don’t assume that you don’t have to put to death the old man. Don’t ignore self-denial and keeping the body under.

~~~~

I hope that all makes some sense and that I am not making a distinction without a difference!

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

We took one week off for a week of evangelistic meetings. The meetings went reasonably well, we had a number of visitors and there seemed to be a positive reaction to the proceedings. Time will tell if the week will make an impact in lives or not.

Yesterday I returned to our summer series, ‘Law, Legalism, and Life’. The message this week was entitled “The Saved are Being Saved”. Our topic was the ongoing work of grace in our lives after salvation. Our text was Titus 2.11-12:

For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age,

The first part of the message explained the nature of ongoing grace. There is such a thing as saving grace, the grace that saves men the moment they put their trust in Christ, repenting of their sins. If one were to die immediately after being born again, the grace of God in salvation would usher the soul into heaven.

Very few people enter heaven this way! Most believers are left on earth to experience the ongoing grace of ‘being saved’, the process of ongoing sanctification. Our passage says first that saving grace has appeared (most translations I consulted insert the word ‘bringing’ into v. 11, but the Gk suggests that ‘salvation for all men’ is in apposition to ‘the grace of God’. The main point of the verse is that saving grace has appeared.

The next verse begins with a word that shows us the process of ongoing sanctification: saving grace is ‘instructing’ us – in other words, a process of instruction is going on, all brought about by the saving grace of God working its way in our lives.

The content of the instruction is first seen in the negative, then the postive aspects. Saving grace teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts. Ungodliness is that which has contempt for God and spiritual things. Worldly lusts are those desires characterised by a ‘world-like-ness’, they are like the corrupt world around us. For example, some of our world exalts violence and rage – do you think grace has something to say to us about violent video games or movies or the like? We could multiply examples of things of this world in various categories, but grace teaches us to deny these things, to renounce them.

Saving grace also teaches us to live soberly (sensibly), i.e., with a disciplined mind under control. It teaches us to live righteously, i.e., according to a rule and standard. Yes! Standards are biblical! What is the ultimate standard? Jesus Christ. And saving grace teaches us to live godly, i.e., with our whole pattern of life, every moment of every day lived according to a rule of reverence for God and the things of God. It is the notion of 24/7 religion, not just Sunday AM religion.

May God help us to learn the lessons of grace, eschew the world, and live for Christ!

~~~~

Rory gave us another excellent message on identifying ourselves with Christ, not considering the risks to a Christian testimony, but trusting God for the power and love and sound mind to identify one’s self with the Lord. His text was 2 Tim 1.1-7, his title: “Take Your Stand for Jesus Christ.” His message was an excellent complement to the one I preached, but he arrived at his text and message with independent study and no hint from me what I was preaching about. Who do you suppose arranged that?

~~~~

We had fifty folks in church this week, mostly regulars with only a few visitors. We seem to be making some progress and have a solid group gathering together each week.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

UPDATE: Oops, forgot to post the notes for this message. Thanks to Jerry Bouey for pointing it out.

Greg Linscott points us to an editorial on the Charisma magazine website. In it the columnist speaks against abusive practices by ‘prominent preachers’ demanding exorbitant appearance fees and even worship by conference attendees. Some apparently demand cash gifts for a moment of counsel from the ‘big man’. [And some accuse fundamentalist preachers of being egomaniacs!]

The article concludes:

New Testament Christianity is humble, selfless and authentic. And those who carry the truth don’t preach for selfish gain or to meet an emotional need for attention. May God help us root out the false apostles and false teachers who are making the American church sick with their man-centered, money-focused heresies.

You won’t root out false teachers without naming names, brother. You won’t cure your assemblies without separating from such.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

A few more thoughts from last week…
~~~

The first two days last week were spent at a meeting in Calgary, AB, sponsored by Foundation Baptist Church and Cornerstone Baptist Church. These churches are pastored by friends of mine from my student days in Greenville, SC: Bud Talbert at Foundation and Rod Alsup at Cornerstone. The conference featured the preaching of Dr. Bob Jones III and Dr. Stephen Jones, both of Bob Jones University, our alma mater.

We all profited from the preaching of the Joneses. Dr. Bob is very familiar to me, and his messages ‘felt like home’. I have heard him preach countless times over the years. This was my first occasion to hear Stephen preach – he was ‘just a lad’ when I was a student at BJU. My wife, when on staff at BJU, frequently was asked to take care of Stephen and his siblings when their parents were away. Thus, to hear Stephen preaching now as president of BJU was a special treat for me. He gave us a fine message on the confidence we can have in the Bible as our sure Word from God.

I guess about fifteen or twenty preachers managed to attend the conference meetings. Most were from Alberta, with a few from as far as Manitoba and me representing the opposite extreme in British Columbia. The distances between towns [something I exulted in with my earlier post] is a factor in the difficulty of ministry in Canada, especially in the West. From the ferry to the meetings is almost 700 miles for me. If my kids had not been attending camp, I would have been unlikely to attend. I am sure others considered the distance too great to make a special trip.

The camaraderie in such meetings, even regular fellowship with like-minded preachers in a local coffee shop, is a great encouragement in the ministry. Our geography makes this difficult. The work of several fellows to build the fellowship of preachers on the prairies is commendable and a great help to them. Of course, distances make it prohibitive for some, but I appreciate the effort that is being made. I want to make it a point to support at least the major meetings of the fellowship and to encourage younger fellows coming up to do the same.

*****

A few words about church planting in Western Canada:

The two churches I mentioned in Calgary both meet in Community Centres. Property of their own would be a great blessing, but property isn’t easy to come by in Calgary. Land costs are high. Even with congregations that are becoming self-supporting, the necessary funds are long in coming. To build churches in such an environment requires long term vision and diligent effort.

There are similar challenges to church planting in Victoria. The people of Calgary will tend to be less left-wing politically than those in Victoria, but they are just as secular. Calgary is a city of over a million people now. Yet it has only a few really solid fundamental churches. It has a few other churches in the evangelical camp, but most of these wouldn’t be considered conservative evangelicals.

The dearth of solid fundamental churches in Calgary is replicated in every city in Western Canada. We need more churches and men who are willing to spend years in small, difficult works. Occasionally God will bless with tremendous results in a particular church, as has been seen in Meadowlands Baptist in Edmonton, pastored by Jim Tillotson. Yet the usual pattern is slow growth which requires long-term commitments.

In the real estate world I was told that Japanese mortgages are sometimes taken for terms of 100 years. Their view of the family is that the investment is not for the first generation, but for the third generation. In some ways, ministry in a secularized culture (from a formerly ‘Christian’ culture) must take on this same outlook. Our labours are not in vain, they are not for ourselves, they are for the Lord and for the future, if He tarries. May God find us faithful.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Dr. Thurman Wisdom in his excellent book, a Royal Destiny: The Reign of Man in God’s Kingdom made this little comment near the end of the first chapter:

Legalistic excesses never justify licentious extremes. [p. 28]

This quote came to mind reading the blog of a fellow who was raised in a fundamentalist church of some kind. He apparently continues as a member of such a church. I don’t know him or his church. I only know what he has written on his blog. Some of the things he says show a discontent with fundamentalism as such, something all too common among many. In fact, my involvement in the fundamentalist ‘blogosphere’ is largely due to my dismay at the attitudes so many openly express.

While I often contend that legalism is in the eye of the beholder, there is no doubt that Pharasaic tendencies exist within fundamentalist ranks. (The fact is, these tendencies exist in any social group, especially and including doctrinaire evangelicalism, but that is another post.) I am currently working on a series of messages about Christian standards and legalism, contrasting the difference between legalistic hairsplitting over minutiae and personal devotion, the practice of submitting one’s whole life to the searching gaze and approval of the Holy Spirit. Pharisaism is about pleasing man – either self or others – with one’s own efforts. Devotion is about seeking to please God.

The fact is, personal devotion may look like Pharisaism to an outside observer. David Hesselgrave makes that point clear in an article posted by Bob Bixby, referenced earlier in my blog. The devotee is earnest about following God and eschewing the world (i.e., personal separation from the world). Both the Pharisee and the devotee can coexist within one local church body without either really being aware of the difference. On the outside, the lifestyle is the same. The Pharisee, in fact, may even appear more holy than the mere devotee. The difference is largely a matter of heart. It is an attitude towards Christian living, a matter of goals and objectives.

The presence of Pharisaism on the one hand and the devotee on the other can and does lead some to cry, ‘a pox on both your houses’. In reaction to Pharisaism, some will entirely abandon the heart attitude fundamentalism intends to foster. To them, fundamentalism equals a myriad of rules, establishing the length of men’s hair [short] and women’s skirts [long] and a host of other things.

Fundamentalism is not really about establishing how long a man’s hair or a woman’s skirt should be. The devotee will want to answer those questions for himself and to some extent will answer them for others, even making such applications a part of his preaching. But fundamentalism isn’t a new Pharisaism, it is a political position within ‘broader Christendom’. Fundamentalism is a reaction to the abandonment of doctrine and holiness by modernists/liberals and a resistance to the compromise of doctrine and holiness by evangelicals.

As movements decay (and they always do) proponents can descend into petty nitpicking about minutiae which can produce a drive to maintain ‘the standards’ as the be all and end all of spiritual life. Quite frankly, such an approach reduces religion to the minimums and quenches the development of personal devotion to some extent. That is, it quenches the Spirit. The pursuit of minutiae leads to Pharisaism, the attempt to please self or others by the perfections of one’s own disciplined life.

Individuals tend to react to Pharisaism in differing ways. Some try to ‘out-Pharisee’ the rest, perpetuating the ossification of the movement. Others rebel, one way or another. Usually rebels don’t just move ‘one notch’ over, to a more ‘reasonable’ position. Instead, they cast off all the restraints they feel imposed on them and move fairly far afield from their original moorings. Some may even abandon Christianity altogether. Most will at least abandon fundamentalism.

All of these reactions are a great concern to me. I believe that the philosophy of fundamentalism is biblical, though the practice of fundamentalists (including, alas, myself) often is not. My writing and thinking on this subject has one aim: to urge others not to abandon fundamentalism while wrestling with the biblical applications of fundamentalist thought. In other words, don’t abandon holiness and separation from the world, false teachers and disobedient brethren just because no fundamentalist is perfectly obedient!

Having said all that, let me get back to the blog that motivated this post. The fellow has a somewhat oxymoronic section on his blog called ‘Current Status of My Beliefs’ […how can something in a state of flux be a belief?]. This fellow evidently comes from a King James Only background. He is seriously questioning that position as well as a number of other points of his fundamentalist background. Evidently along with the KJO position, his background includes a seemingly heavy dose of Pharisaism [although I make that statement based only on his observations, I don’t know anything about the reality of the churches this fellow has been involved with].

For example, on a page re-evaluating fundamentalism, he says this:

A lot of the legalism that our church teaches is due to their understanding of “Holiness”. Are they correct? Holiness is why we can’t wear shorts to church functions in summer. It’s why we can’t go to the movie theater. Why we can’t drink, smoke, have piercings or tattoos. Why we can’t listen to music with drums. How do you quantify holiness?

The points following this post indicate the fellow senses something wrong with the church and identifies the problem as ‘fundamentalism’. [At least, that is the way I am reading it.] As I understand what this fellow is saying, his response is typical of many who are wrestling with the fundamentalist label. They are disgusted with something which they think equals fundamentalism. What they are disgusted with is Pharisaism. I would suggest that their disgust with Pharisaism is appropriate. The Lord never intended for us to descend to the level of the Pharisees. In fact, Jesus said our righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees.

On another page our blogger friend also questions what he calls ‘teetotalism’. The page illustrates my point in making today’s lengthy post. It is a reactionary approach to Pharsaic legalism. Once the tent pegs are loosened, the whole tent comes down. Consider this statement in that light:

Teetoalism [sic] is taught by my church, most of the ideas of which I am suspect [sic] right now.

To be fair, the points that follow on this page are barely a cursory examination of the premise. Further, I don’t really want to debate the issue of alcohol itself in this post. I draw attention to the post since this is one of the areas that a reactionary response to legalism seems to immediately go.

I have gone round and round on this with many people who claim to be fundamentalists. It is shocking to me that there is an argument at all. Alcohol is a drug with particularly harmful side-effects. The arguments made for its use ‘in moderation’ could be made for almost any illegal drug – and sometimes are, by Christians. The only restraint on illegal drugs in the minds of some is that they are illegal.

An online friend, Scott Aniol, notes that perhaps after music, no subject is more contentious than the question whether Christians should use alcohol as a beverage. Scott points us to a fine sermon by my friend Gary Reimers as well as an article Gary has written on the subject. Bob Bixby posted a passionate article in opposition to the use of alcohol some months back. He posts on the topic here as well. I have posted the notes from sermons I have preached on the subject here and here.

But as I said, I don’t want to rehash the arguments against alcohol here. What I want to point out is that antagonism to Pharisaism often leads people far from their fundamentalist roots to a place of casting off restraints and indulging the flesh. Though right in suspecting the legalistic excess of Pharisaism, they fail to exceed the Pharisees in righteousness as Jesus calls us to do.

Recall Dr. Wisdom’s comment:

Legalistic excesses never justify licentious extremes. [p. 28]

Is it true that fundamentalists are guilty of legalistic excesses? Well, are fundamentalists human? Of course some of them are guilty. Perhaps all of us are guilty of it at one point or another. What human being isn’t? We all like to approve ourselves and we all are most impressed with our own righteousness. Sometimes we are able to impress others with our righteousness as well.

But how should we react to the legalistic excesses of others? Is the right response a move towards less restraint? Towards more self-indulgence?

We see many young people raised or trained in fundamentalist homes, churches, and institutions moving lemming-like towards increasingly wilder forms of music, lowering the restraints on alcohol, lowering the bar on various forms of entertainment, spending their leisure in increasingly self-indulgent ways. They embrace the world and call it godliness. Is this a righteousness that exceeds the righteousness of the Pharisees? Is this kingdom living?

Is this a violation of Dr. Wisdom’s wise counsel?

Legalistic excesses never justify licentious extremes. [p. 28]

It really ought to be a concern to us when the ‘solution’ to fundamentalism is self-indulgence. In particular, the instinctive reaction of spiritually minded Christians against alcohol use is not Pharisaism. It is wisdom. It is holiness. It is Christian love. It is self-preservation.

There is no need for using alcohol as a beverage today. It serves no purpose but self-indulgence today. It is a means Satan uses for seducing the unwary into all kinds of licentiousness.

I urge any Christian, of any kind, to turn away from the temptation to indulge self with alcohol. I especially urge young fundamentalists to consider the danger of falling into bitterness over Pharisaical failures by some fundamentalists. Bitterness will only propel you to ruin. Beware of your own brand of Pharisaism, seek to help others caught up in Phariasaism, but don’t be tempted to abandon the cause of holiness and orthodoxy that Christian fundamentalism truly is.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3