The R-Word (Part II)

Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the Lord... --Acts 3:19

A man once told me that my emphasis on repentance was "theological hair-splitting," because some Scripture passages that deal with salvation stress faith, but don't mention repentance. For example, the famous Ephesians 2:8-9 says we are saved "by grace... through faith," with no explicit reference to repentance. For crying out loud, even John 3:16 says "whoever believes in Him... will have everlasting life." Thus, according to his logic, repentance is not always a necessary part of the Gospel presentation. Judging by my limited experience in the evangelical church, it seems a depressing amount of "believers" (if not "repenters") not only agree with his opinion, but assume it uncritically. So nobody bats an eye when hell-bound enemies of God are told to simply "believe that Jesus died for your sins" and "accept God's free gift of salvation." Sound familiar?

Yeah, I thought it might.

So why am I whining about this? What's the big deal? Apparantly biblical faith doesn't have to include repentance, right? So says today's popular easy-believism, but not Scripture. "But what about John 3:16 and Ephesians 2:8-9, etc., etc?" Great question. This is what I'm getting at: Biblical faith presupposes Biblical repentance. Faith is, in a sense, built upon the foundation of repentance. You cannot look to Christ in saving faith without first looking away from yourself in repentance. That's why, again, John the Baptist and Jesus both began their ministries by preaching repentance. When Scripture refers to the entire package of conversion as "faith," it does so to those who understand that repentance and faith are two sides of the same coin. (In John 3:16, Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus, a man familiar with His ministry to that point--see verse 2-- and a Pharisee, presumably an expert in the Old Testament. In Ephesians 2, Paul was writing to born-again believers. He didn't have to tell them that they repented of their sins; they already knew that. His point was that salvation is God's gift. It is not earned, even by repentance.)

But most of us, as evangelists, haven't had a John the Baptist to be our forerunner and prepare people's hearts for the message. Our listeners aren't in the same place as Nicodemus or the Ephesian church. In our culture, most people, including way too many church-goers, think religion just determines what you (might) do on Sundays, and in what kind of building you (might) get married. Telling a 21st-century American to "believe in Jesus" without thoroughly explaining the meaning and necessity of repentance is like telling a kid to write a story without teaching him the alphabet. When we say "believe" or "have faith," they're usually hearing "accept as factually true." Now hordes of religious people have intellectually accepted a (quasi-)gospel presentation as fact, and have even decided to identify themselves with those facts. Hooray for them.

Sadly, that's not salvation. We've led them to walk an aisle, shake a hand, say a prayer, sign a card, take a swim, warm a pew, and start writing checks-- but few have really grasped the reality of such commands as, "Come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord." (2 Cor. 6:17) If they hear no call for repentance, they will shed no tear, admit no helplessness, seek no Messiah, abandon no sin, surrender no control, desire no holiness, and thus experience no sanctification.

Think I'm exaggerating? Compare the spiritual vitality of the average life-long church member (if you can get to know one deeply enough) to the standard set forth in Scripture, and consider whether maybe we've dropped the ball on this whole repentance concept.

"Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God... And this we will do if God permits." --Hebrews 6:1, 3

The R-Word (Part I)

For the leaders of this people cause them to err... --Isaiah 9:16

Christmas morning I visited a random church in my hometown. I flipped open my Bible and was surprised to read the above verse, which I thought the bulletin said would be that morning's sermon text. I thought it said verse 16; it actually said verse 6, "For unto us a Child is born... and His name will be called... Prince of peace." This, of course, made much more sense. However, as the service concluded, I understood that verse 16 may have been just as appropriate.

Focusing on Christ as the Prince of peace, the sermon's three main points were: "The Promise of Peace" (a promise made by God to all who respond), "The Provision of Peace" (this peace is made possible by Christ), and "The Protection of Peace" (Christians do certain things to maintain the peace of God, such as loving God, loving others, etc). Though this "gospel" presentation was devoid of any mention of the wrath of God against sin or the purpose of salvation, (personal holiness and the glory of God,) what struck me the most was the way the pastor called- or didn't call- the congregation to respond. I was listening quite intently for a single word, a word which is most necessary to the Gospel, a word that never came: "repent."

Neither repentance nor confession were mentioned, but peace was promised and all were invited to walk down the aisle to receive it. No one did, and I can't say I wish they had. Countless others have been sweet-talked into "making a decision for Jesus," without any idea that what they were told is but a fraction of the truth, and the whole truth is much harder to swallow. If our churches dared to preach the Gospel that the Word teaches, our numbers would be less impressive, but I believe what remains would be much more gold and less wood, hay, and stubble. (1 Corinthians 3:10-15) But even though no one came forward that morning, the largest church crowd of the year still saw a representative of the Almighty stand and offer peace without pain, contentment without contrition, and salvation without sacrifice. And probably only one or two people would have agreed that anything was wrong--that's me being optimistic.

Therefore thus says the Lord God: “Because you have spoken nonsense and envisioned lies, therefore I am indeed against you,” says the Lord God. “My hand will be against the prophets who envision futility and who divine lies... Because, indeed, because they have seduced My people, saying, ‘Peace!’ when there is no peace." --Ezekiel 13:8-10 (c.f. Jeremiah 6:14; 8:11)

Have we forgotten that the message of John the Baptist, who was to prepare the hearts of the people to receive their Messiah, was "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand?" (Matthew 3:1-2) He even had the audacity to command that his converts "bear fruits worthy of repentance." (Matthew 3:8) Jesus Himself opened His public ministry with the same harsh, unpopular cry: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!" (Matthew 4:17) The apostle Paul likewise said that he called people to "repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." (Acts 20:21)

But far be it from me to stand in the way of the experienced peddlers of the quick and painless drive-thru gospel. They've been at this for a long time. What do I know? I'm just a kid with a Bible.

To be continued...

no wonder they called him a "prophet"

"Unannounced and mostly undetected there has come in modern times a new cross into popular evangelical circles. It is like the old cross, but different: the likenesses are superficial; the differences, fundamental...

The old cross slew men; the new cross entertains them. The old cross condemned; the new cross amuses. The old cross destroyed confidence in the flesh; the new cross encourages it. The old cross brought tears and blood; the new cross brings laughter. The flesh, smiling and confident, preaches and sings about the cross; before that cross it bows and toward that cross it points with carefully staged histrionics--but upon that cross it will not die, and the reproach of that cross it stubbornly refuses to bear.

I well know how many smooth arguments can be marshalled in support of the new cross. Does not the new cross win converts and make many followers and so carry the advantage of numerical success? Should we not adjust ourselves to the changing times? Have we not heard the slogan, "New days, new ways"? And who but someone very old and very conservative would insist upon death as the appointed way to life? And who today is interested in a gloomy mysticism that would sentence its flesh to a cross and recommend self-effacing humility as a virtue actually to be practiced by modern Christians? These are the arguments, along with many more flippant still, which are brought forward to give an appearance of wisdom to the hollow and meaningless cross of popular Christianity."

--A.W. Tozer, from The Old Cross and the New, and The Pursuit of Man, p. 53-54

Loving God, Part I

"'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.' This is the first commandment." Mark 12:30

It is no secret that the commandment which Jesus called the first and the greatest is not considered to be very important today. It has been downplayed in our churches for some time. You may hear it mentioned by a preacher or teacher, but it hardly receives the emphasis given to it by Jesus Himself. Interestingly, it has therefore ceased to be meaningful to us because it has become both very familiar and very vague...

Ask any professing Christian to quote the first and greatest commandment, and with rare exceptions, he can do so. But then ask the same person if he is currently being obedient to that commandment, and the reply may come less quickly. He may look confused-- maybe surprised at the suggestion that such obedience is not automatic, or unsure of how to know whether He truly loves God. He may become uneasy-- knowing that his life does not reflect a love of God. Or he may even get outright defensive-- genuinely believing that such undivided love of God is impossible in this life, and deeply offended that you would be so judgmental to suggest that he's not doing "the best he can," or that his spiritual life is not what it should be, (when in fact, you may not have been implying anything of the sort.) Far too commonly however, the reaction seems to be one of complete disinterest-- unconcerned that he doesn't love God as He deserves and commands, and not considering it to be "that big a deal."

We don't like to admit that this isn't "the first and greatest suggestion," or the "first and greatest aspiration." It is a command! Our love-lessness toward God isn't a "shortcoming"; it is rebellion, disobedience, and sin! We ignore what God has commanded first of all: the giving of our entire beings- heart, soul, mind, and strength- to Him as a love offering. And yet we expect Him to be pleased with our church attendance, our tithing, our "good deeds," our evangelism, and so on. Beyond all our explicitly "religious" actions, we expect God to be satisfied with all our work, our socializing, and our recreation, though we may never so much as think of Him for days on end.

May we be deeply convicted by God's Spirit of our self-centered, self-driven, self-gratifying lives, moral and respectable though we may be.

"These people draw near to Me with their mouth and honor Me with their lips, but their hearts are far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men."
Matthew 15:8-9

"Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart." 1 Samuel 16:7