Forgiveness is at the heart of the Christian faith. Christ died to forgive our sins and to reconcile us to God. And Jesus taught that His disciples must forgive those who sin against them. He said, “if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses” (Matt 6:15). Forgiveness is not an option for believers. Jesus said, “And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses” (Mk 11:25). Christians must forgive because they have been forgiven (Matt 18:21-25).
But there is a difference between forgiving a person and reconciling your relationship with that person. Forgiveness is something Christ requires of you, no matter what the other person does. Forgiveness means that you sincerely, from the heart, cancel the other person’s debt against you personally. It involves repenting of any sinful anger and refusing to harbor bitterness against the person who has sinned against you. Forgiving means you promise to let go of the personal aspect of the offense and refuse to obsess over it.
To be clear, forgiving another person does not mean you release them from church discipline or criminal penalties. In some cases, faithfulness means that you have to personally forgive those who have sinned against you, even while filing charges against them for church discipline and seeking a legal penalty. If you’ve forgiven someone, then pursuing discipline and justice isn’t vindictive or vengeful. It’s done from a heart of love to Christ, love to the sinner, and love for others.
Forgiveness means that you sincerely, from the heart, cancel the other person’s debt against you personally.
While Christians must unilaterally extend forgiveness, it’s impossible to reconcile a relationship faithfully without mutual promises. Forgiveness is a unilateral promise, but reconciliation involves bilateral promises. In order for a relationship to be reconciled, not only must the offended party make the promises of forgiveness, but the offending party must repent of sin, promise to continue in repentance, and bear fruit in keeping with their professed repentance (Matt 3:8).
Within the church, reconciliation means that you are willing to accept the offending party as a brother or sister in Christ and to commune with them in the church. It also means that you are open to growing in your trust of this person over time, as they continue to walk faithfully in Christ, but it does not necessarily mean that you should receive them as a close companion, or that they should be restored to their former relationship with you. Christian reconciliation does not immediately imply that all trust is restored. It means that you receive them as a brother or sister in Christ.
So, when does forgiveness not lead to reconciliation?
1. When the sinning party clearly does not repent.
The Bible gives strong warnings against walking with impenitent sinners. God commands Christians to flee from the wicked. Psalm 1:1 says, “Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers.” 1 Corinthians 15:33 says, “Do not be deceived, bad company ruins good morals.” The Lord does not want us to be companions with bad company. The Christian response to an impenitent sinner is to avoid them, not to reconcile with them.
Many object that Christ ate and drank with sinners (Matt 9:10-13). And He certainly did, but only to call them to Himself and to urge them to repent of their sins (Matt 9:13). He did not fellowship with the wicked. In fact, the Bible is clear that He didn’t trust the crowds of sinners who listened to His teaching (Jn 2:24). Trusting people is not a biblical virtue. It is foolish to trust those who are untrustworthy. Jesus says, “Beware of men” (Matt 10:17). Thus, as Christians, we must not reconcile with those who do not repent, but persist in their sins.
Christian reconciliation does not immediately imply that all trust is restored. It means that you receive them as a brother or sister in Christ.
Christ fled from the wicked. He avoided going to Jerusalem because He knew people meant Him harm (Jn 7:8). Christ frequently ran away when the Pharisees or the crowds sought to coerce Him or do Him harm (Jn 6:15; 8:59; 10:39; Matt 12:14-15). He only gave up His life at the time and place when He agreed to do so in the terms of the covenant of redemption. He was a willing sacrifice for sinners. But prior to the cross, Jesus protected Himself and did not offer Himself up to the ungodly.
2. When the sinning party only seems to repent.
Sometimes unrepentant sinners will claim to repent, but they don’t really repent. They may weep and confess their sins, but it’s only worldly sorrow (2 Cor 7:10). They may say all the right words, and appear to be godly (2 Tim 3:5), but their behaviors never fundamentally change. They may change for a short time, but soon enough, they return to their patterns of sin. They may hide their sin, and make a display of outwardly righteous behavior, but the pattern of sin remains. They may not seek accountability, or they may manipulate the people who are supposed to be holding them accountable. But they persist in their sin, even while claiming to repent.
The Bible is clear that we are to avoid those who only claim to repent. 2 Timothy 3:5 warns of those “having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people.” Christians should not reconcile with people who pretend to repent, but whose lives are still enslaved to sin.
3. When the sin has caused great harm and offense.
It’s important to understand that some sins have such great consequences that they completely shatter the trust at a personal level, and the relationship can never be restored. For example, within a marriage, adultery can have such disastrous effects, and be such a betrayal of trust, that the spousal relationship can never be reconciled within the marriage covenant (sometimes called restoration). That’s why God says adultery is grounds for divorce, whether or not the adulterous spouse repents (Matt 6:31-32). Scripture nowhere requires spouses to reconcile within a marriage, when one spouse has biblical grounds for divorce, even if the offending spouse repents.
The Bible does require us to forgive those who have harmed us, and it requires us to reconcile as brothers and sisters in Christ, if the sinning party repents. But the Bible does not tell us to trust people, and receive them into close companionship, if they have utterly destroyed our trust. We must love them (Matt 5:44), but we are not required to trust them (Jn 2:24).
Finally, Christians need to be very careful not to demand that people reconcile. Too often, Christians are eager to see relationships restored. And while a restored relationship could be a beautiful thing, it may also be a terrible thing. Christians shouldn’t pressure other Christians to reconcile, when reconciliation is not biblically warranted.

This article was originally posted at PastorTomHicks.com and is posted here with permission. 

Follow Tom Hicks:

Tweet Share

Henry David Thoreau was an eccentric 19th century American author, philosopher, and naturalist. He spent 2 years, 2 months and 2 days living in a small cabin he built himself outside of Concord, Massachusetts. He chronicles his reflections during that experience in his 1854 book, Walden. He explains the rationale for his exile in the wilderness in the following words.

I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived. I did not wish to live what was not life, living is so dear; nor did I wish to practice resignation, unless it was quite necessary. I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life, to live so sturdily and Spartan-like as to put to rout all that was not life, to cut a broad swath and shave close, to drive life into a corner, and reduce it to its lowest terms, and, if it proved to be mean, why then to get the whole and genuine meanness of it, and publish its meanness to the world; or if it were sublime, to know it by experience, and be able to give a true account of it in my next excursion.

Thoreau commendably wanted to live life to the fullest, to experience its richness at its deepest levels so that when he died, he could die without regret. Eight years after publishing Walden, on May 6, 1862, after a lingering case of tuberculosis, he did die. While on his deathbed, his Aunt Louisa asked him if he had made his peace with God. Thoreau’s response was, “I did not know we had ever quarreled.”
Those words, no doubt spoken in sincerity, reflect the kind of willful ignorance that has tragically plagued mankind since our first parents turned away from our Creator. I call it “ignorance” because it reflects a lack of knowledge about the way things actually are.
The Bible teaches us that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 6:23) and that because of sin we are all “by nature children of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3), that is the wrath of God. The Apostle Paul says that we are all naturally “enemies of God” (Romans 5:10).
That is undeniably the way that life is now. But it is not the way it was in the beginning. Originally, God made Adam and Eve “upright” (Ecclesiastes 7:29) and enjoyed perfect fellowship with them. Sin caused them to be separated from Him and at odds with Him. Failure to acknowledge that is to be ill-informed. It is ignorance.
Such ignorance is willful because, as Romans 1:18-20 says, “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”
So yes, we all have quarreled with God—including those who, like Thoreau, are willfully ignorant of it. Sin has placed everyone in jeopardy and exposes us all to His wrath. The result is that, left to ourselves we cannot ever have peace with God.
But the good news that is revealed to us in the Bible is that God has not left us to ourselves. On the contrary, in our weakness and helplessness, He has come to us. Through His Son, Jesus Christ, He has provided salvation for us—a way for us to be restored to Him; to have our sin forgiven and to experience genuine peace with God.
Because of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, God now reconciles to Himself all who turn from sin and trust in Jesus as Lord.
That truth is what empowered the Apostle Paul to live the way that He did as a minister of Jesus Christ. And that truth is the very foundation of His church throughout the ages. It is what Christians live for; what we stand for. It is the one message that we have that we must declare to men, women, boys and girls today: “in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself” (2 Corinthians 5:19).

Follow Tom Ascol:

Henry David Thoreau was an eccentric 19th century American author, philosopher, and naturalist. He spent 2 years, 2 months and 2 days living in a small cabin he built himself outside of Concord, Massachusetts. He chronicles his reflections during that experience in his 1854 book, Walden. He explains the rationale for his exile in the wilderness in the following words.

I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived. I did not wish to live what was not life, living is so dear; nor did I wish to practice resignation, unless it was quite necessary. I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life, to live so sturdily and Spartan-like as to put to rout all that was not life, to cut a broad swath and shave close, to drive life into a corner, and reduce it to its lowest terms, and, if it proved to be mean, why then to get the whole and genuine meanness of it, and publish its meanness to the world; or if it were sublime, to know it by experience, and be able to give a true account of it in my next excursion.

Thoreau commendably wanted to live life to the fullest, to experience its richness at its deepest levels so that when he died, he could die without regret. Eight years after publishing Walden, on May 6, 1862, after a lingering case of tuberculosis, he did die. While on his deathbed, his Aunt Louisa asked him if he had made his peace with God. Thoreau’s response was, “I did not know we had ever quarreled.”
Those words, no doubt spoken in sincerity, reflect the kind of willful ignorance that has tragically plagued mankind since our first parents turned away from our Creator. I call it “ignorance” because it reflects a lack of knowledge about the way things actually are.
The Bible teaches us that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 6:23) and that because of sin we are all “by nature children of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3), that is the wrath of God. The Apostle Paul says that we are all naturally “enemies of God” (Romans 5:10).
That is undeniably the way that life is now. But it is not the way it was in the beginning. Originally, God made Adam and Eve “upright” (Ecclesiastes 7:29) and enjoyed perfect fellowship with them. Sin caused them to be separated from Him and at odds with Him. Failure to acknowledge that is to be ill-informed. It is ignorance.
Such ignorance is willful because, as Romans 1:18-20 says, “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”
So yes, we all have quarreled with God—including those who, like Thoreau, are willfully ignorant of it. Sin has placed everyone in jeopardy and exposes us all to His wrath. The result is that, left to ourselves we cannot ever have peace with God.
But the good news that is revealed to us in the Bible is that God has not left us to ourselves. On the contrary, in our weakness and helplessness, He has come to us. Through His Son, Jesus Christ, He has provided salvation for us—a way for us to be restored to Him; to have our sin forgiven and to experience genuine peace with God.
Because of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, God now reconciles to Himself all who turn from sin and trust in Jesus as Lord.
That truth is what empowered the Apostle Paul to live the way that He did as a minister of Jesus Christ. And that truth is the very foundation of His church throughout the ages. It is what Christians live for; what we stand for. It is the one message that we have that we must declare to men, women, boys and girls today: “in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself” (2 Corinthians 5:19).

Follow Tom Ascol:

Tweet Share

Baptists love the Bible. This is not to diminish the love other orthodox traditions have for the sacred Scriptures, but it is only to highlight that present-day particular Baptists come from a long line of godly men who have given their lives to studying, preaching, translating, and submitting to God’s Holy Word.
In this post we want to consider the theology of inspiration. That is, what do we believe it means that the Bible is “inspired” and how did this “inspiration” come to be?
The Meaning of Inspiration
The go to passage for the inspiration of the Bible is 2 Timothy 3:16. There Paul says that all Scripture is “breathed out” by God. Thus, the various connotations of the English word “inspiration” do not fully capture what we are communicating when we say the Bible is inspired by God.
We are not merely saying that the Bible is “inspirational.” Nor are we saying that the Holy Spirit gave the Biblical authors good ideas to write about. We are not saying that the Bible “contains” the Word of God. Instead, what we are saying is that the Biblical authors were moved by the Spirit of God in such a way as to write down the very words He would have them to write.
Louis Berkhof puts it this way, “By inspiration we understand that supernatural influence exerted on the sacred writers by the Holy Spirit, by virtue of which their writings are given divine truthfulness, and constitute an infallible and sufficient rule of faith and practice.”
Inspiration, then, means that the Bible is God’s Book containing all of God’s Words that He desires His people to have. The Scriptures are God’s Words in such a way that, in the words of Joel Beeke, “when we read the Bible…we hear the voice of the living God.”
This is what the Apostles believed (see Acts 1:16, 4:25, 28:25, 2 Peter 3:14-16, 2 Tim. 3:16). This is what Jesus believed (see Mark 12:36, Matthew 22:31). This is what Christians believe.
The Method of Inspiration
The Holy Spirit didn’t just send down the Bible from heaven. Nor did He overtake men’s brains in such a way as to put them in a trance and have them write without thinking. The method of inspiration is a beautiful mystery affirming the sovereign praiseworthiness of the Holy Spirit.
What is the method of inspiration of the Bible? I have 4 points here for us to consider.

Providence

I want to mention here that not only is the Holy Spirit responsible for the writings of the Scriptures themselves, but also the circumstances surrounding the writings.
What would the book of Ephesians be like if Paul wasn’t writing under Roman guard? What would Revelation be like if John wasn’t in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day? What would the letter of 1 Corinthians be like if the church at Corinth wasn’t in such a mess?
What I mean here is that the Holy Spirit has ordered the circumstances, timing, audience, and culture surrounding the writing of the Scriptures in a sovereign way so as to give us the 66 books that make up the Bible.

Partnership

The theological term here is concurrence. The idea is this: The Holy Spirit moved in and through the biblical authors in such a way that what they wrote is what they wanted to write while simultaneously being the very words that He had for them to write.
As the writers were writing the Scriptures they were “carried along” by the Holy Spirit as He was working in and through them and their circumstances to breathe out His Word (see 2 Peter 1:19-21).
The Spirit carried the writers in such a way that what they wrote is what He wrote. It’s not that He physically carried them or put them into a trance but worked through all of their circumstances in such a way as that when they produced the final product, it was the very Word of God, breathed out by the Holy Spirit of God.
Louis Berkhof notes, “The term ‘writing’ must be taken in a comprehensive sense. It includes the investigation of documents, the collection of facts, the arrangement of material, the very choice of words, in fact all the processes that enter into the composition of a book.”
So, as Luke is doing his investigative work into the life of Jesus, as David is writing his poetry in the Psalms, as the Chronicler of 1 and 2 Chronicles is putting together facts and information, as Paul is penning his letters to the churches, as John is writing down what he saw in heaven, in all of this, the Holy Spirit of God is working through the different circumstances, personalities, cultures, investigations, compilations, research, and languages of these writers. The Holy Spirit worked through all of these events and processes in such a way so as to give us not only the words of these men, but through the words of these men, His own very words.
In the Bible sometimes you have divine dictation. God spoke and said write this down. Sometimes you have a dream or a letter or a poem or a prophecy or a historical account. But what I am saying is that in all of this the human authors wrote even as the Holy Spirit worked by, in, through, and upon them.
Perhaps some read this and say, “I hear you preacher, but these were sinful humans, so the Bible must be tainted.” The reality is that God did use fallen men to write the Bible. Isaiah, Moses, Matthew, Jeremiah: Yes these were fallen men, as were all the biblical authors. But the Holy Spirit used them, nonetheless. And He used them in such a way so as to keep their sin out of the Bible.
I don’t mean the Bible doesn’t record their sin. Of course, it does. What I mean is that the Bible is not tainted or corrupted by the hands of fallen men. John Macarthur put it beautifully this way: “As a person can draw a straight line with a crooked stick, God produced an inerrant Bible through imperfect men.”
So, we are discussing the method of inspiration. And we have seen Providence and we have seen Partnership. 3rdly I want to mention:

Precision

Here is what I mean by precision: The Holy Spirit breathed out not just the ideas into the minds of the biblical writers, but the very words. Do you remember what Jesus said in Matthew 5:18? “For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”
The very dots and marks on the very letters of words were given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit – these very letters comprising the very words they composed were breathed out by God.
This is what we call the Verbal Plenary Inspiration of the Bible. That is, the Holy Spirit breathed out the words of the whole Bible so that every word and the entirety of the Bible is the Word of God. The words and sentences and syntax and grammar – it is all from the Holy Spirit, breathed out precisely as He wanted it to be.
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy puts it this way: “We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration. We deny that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly be affirmed of the whole without the parts, or of some parts but not the whole.”
So, in every song, in every prophecy, in every epistle, in every historical narrative, the Holy Spirit is not giving the Biblical authors big ideas, but actually words – the precise words that He would have them write.
And so, while He uses their numerous circumstances, individual personalities, and various genres of writing, the Holy Spirit is doing so in such a way as to give us His own very words. Precision.
This brings me to my 4th point here. We have considered Providence, Partnership, Precision, and now:

Power

There is power in the Word of God for sure. But that’s for another post. Consider here for a moment the power of the Holy Spirit in giving us His Word. The power over every circumstance. The power over every jot and tittle. The power over the preservation of His Word.
Put 40 authors in a room and tell them to write a unified story. And then make them speak different languages. And then make some of them kings and some of them paupers. And then demand each of them write in a different genre. And then separate these authors geographically over 3 continents where they cannot communicate and separate them historically over a span of 1500 years.
You’re not going to get a unified story. You are going to get a mess. It would be like taking some of the pieces of 40 different puzzles and trying to cram them together to make one picture. Whatever you get its going to be ugly.
But this is not the case with the Bible. Why? The power of the Holy Spirit! He took these men and these time periods and these languages and these circumstances and He produced this beautiful Book that tells a cohesive, unified story.
The story of Christ! This inerrant, infallible, authoritative, sufficient Book tells us of Christ. Praise the Holy Spirit for giving us this Book. But what the Book points to is exactly what the Holy Spirit wants us to see: Christ! (cf. John 16:14)
Now, I have one more point here that I will mention briefly and then we will close. We have considered the Meaning of Inspiration, the Method of Inspiration, and finally let me just mention:
The Mystery of Inspiration
Here I just mean that while we’ve worked through this and seen the Biblical position on inspiration, there is still some mystery here, isn’t there?
I understand Paul writing and the Holy Spirit writing but fitting this all together takes us ultimately to the mysterious workings of our sovereign God. And yet we see the veracity and beauty of the Scriptures and we trust them.
What a glory it is to trust the Holy Spirit giving us His necessary, authoritative, sufficient, and clear Word. How wonderful that we have an inerrant and infallible Bible!
But this brings up another mystery to me. Since the Scriptures are the very Word of our great and glorious triune God, why are our bibles so dusty? Spurgeon said, “There is dust enough on some of your Bibles to write ‘damnation’ with your fingers.”
Let me close this post with some serious implications regarding all I’ve said. If the Bible really is the breathed-out words of the living God (and it is!),

Why do you not bring your Bible to church? Or why do you at times leave it there?
Why are you not reading it every day? If you do not read your Bible every day but still have a social media account and Netflix, you are living in folly.
Why do you not read the Bible with your spouse and children?
How much contempt must we have for the Holy Spirit and our own children not to read the Good Book with them?
Why do you buy your children new clothes but not furnish them with good Bibles? Do you only care to clothe their bodies and not their souls?
Why do you disregard its precepts, its promises, its warnings?
Why do you treat this Book so frivolously and cavalierly?
Why do you not trust it as sufficient and obey it as the authority that it is? Since the Bible is God’s Word, to disbelieve or disobey the Bible is to disbelieve or disobey God.

We could go on ad infinitum with questions like these! But please consider today, what a Book God has blessed you with. His very words! Do you not think He will hold you accountable for your lack of knowing His Book? You have time for so many things but not for His Book?
Will we prize this grand possession that the Holy Spirit has given us? Will we repent of any disregard practically or theologically that we have had concerning this great Book?
Beloved, let us cherish these 66 Books that tell us the story of Jesus. Let us give our lives to trusting these words. Let us give our time, energy, and resources to knowing all this Book has for us and teaching it to others for the glory of our triune God.

Tweet Share

Last week our friends over at CrossPolitic (CP) posted a couple of podcast episodes that understandably offended large numbers of Christians who take God’s Word seriously. They did it in the name of “rowdy Presbyterianism,” serrated edge communication, and even brotherly love. Their original failure was bad enough. But their multiple follow-up defenses of their antics suggest that their mischaracterization of Baptists might be a feature, not a bug.
For the uninformed or slightly informed, what they tried to say is that the rampant individualism that permeates much of the Baptist and evangelical world can pave the way for transgenderism in America. But what they actually said is that Baptist theology “is the cause of” transgenderism. If you want to get up to speed you can go here to see the original source of the lingering stench they created when they intentionally stomped on some cow pies and then continued to track their mess throughout the reformed evangelical house. What they should have done once friends began to complain about the stink and collectively point to the source, was stop, remove their shoes, and start cleaning up the mess they made. That would have been both right and wise.
After all, that’s how Christians live, right? We are both believers and repenters. When the Corinthians became convinced by Paul’s rebuke that they had stepped in it what did they do? They grieved in a godly manner and repented and Paul commended them for it. “For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death. For see what earnestness this godly grief has produced in you, but also what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what longing, what zeal, what punishment! At every point you have proved yourselves innocent in the matter” (2 Corinthians 7:10-11).
Some may not judge what the CP men did as sin that needs to be repented of. Others understandably see the accusation as slanderous. In the spirit of 1 Corinthians 4:13, I would like to entreat my brothers to own what they have broadcast on their show and recant. Even if they cannot be convinced of sin, I hope they will at the very least realize that their words and actions have certainly catapulted way beyond the walls of wisdom and deep into the fields of foolishness. Either way, what was said should have been simply and plainly renounced.
Instead, they doubled down. “What stink? Let me explain to you why the sights and smells that you find problematic are really due to your hyper-sensitivity and not the poop on our shoes.” That basic thesis has been defended first by a follow-up podcast episode and then three (so far) written essays, not to mention various social media comments. The common theme in each is, “Hey, we didn’t do anything wrong. Why are your knickers in a knot?”
What They Actually Said
Gabe Rench has rightly appealed to people to “deal fairly with what we said.” I intend to do just that because burning straw men serves only to pollute the relational environment and is beneath the kind of good-faith engagement that should mark disagreements among Christians. Of course, the same is true about defending straw men when real men have actually been critiqued. More on that later.
In a CP show called, “From Slavery to Abortion to Transgenderism—The Church Led us to the Trans Movement,” David Shannon, Gabe Rench, and Jared Longshore were joined with video-guest, Jason Farley. Farley explained the rising transgenderism with its attendant mutilation of bodies with this statement (at 14:15): “This is just American Baptist Theology secularized.” At the end of that show, Shannon encouraged viewers to join the Fight, Laugh, Feast Club so that they could hear the rest of the conversation that would take place with Farley “Backstage.” Both of those shows are helpfully embedded in Gabe Rench’s article here.
Burning straw men serves only to pollute the relational environment and is beneath the kind of good-faith engagement that should mark disagreements among Christians.
That “Backstage” episode is entitled, “The Failure of Baptist Theology,” which precisely indicates that for which they actually argue during the next 27 minutes. That conversation, which continued without Longshore, opened with this exchange between Rench and Farley:

Rench: Let’s say I am Baptist Rench and you just said what you said.
Farley (laughing): I know. David gave me permission.
Rench: You came out and said that my view of waiting till my child is ready to confess faith in our Lord and then baptize them is, is related to the identity crisis found in transgenderism.
Farley: Yeah, I didn’t say “related to” I said, “is the cause of.”
Laughter by Knox & Rench
Rench calls that comment “a bomb” that Farley throws into the lap of faithful Baptist families, in essence saying to them, “you are the cause of the transgender problem.”
Farley: Yeah. Well, the pastor is, but yeah.

Farley goes on to talk about abortion being the church’s fault due to Christian parents because “we were the ones that started saying, “‘Not my kids,’ right?—that birth is not enough for me to say that, ‘Yes this is my kid’ because God doesn’t think in those categories. Right?”

Rench responds, “Right.”
Farely: Well, the categories that God thinks in are more real than any of the categories that I think in. So, if God looks at my kids and says,”‘Not my kids,” God is rejecting my kids before I ever do, then that’s a much deeper issue than [he does not finish his thought]. So then when the world comes along and says, “Well, look, they’re not even kids yet, right?”
Rench & Knox: Yeah
Farley: “We can kill them.” Just today, my 16 year old son who just got his driver’s license. We were driving home he was like, “Dad I was talking to my Baptist friend and I said, ‘So why aren’t you baptized yet?’ He was like, ‘Well you gotta make the choice and stuff.’ ‘Well, hurry up and do it.’ ‘Well, that’ s not really how it works, you gotta mean it and stuff.’
And he [Farley’s son] went on to say, “When your parents were adopted by God do you think that wasn’t going to include you? [Like God would say:] ‘I’ll take you but I don’t want your kids?’”
Rench: “Wow”
Farley quoting his son, who continues to speak for God: “‘I’ll be your dad but I won’t be your grandkids’ grandpa?’”
Rench: Right. Wow.

So here we have advocates of CREC theology applauding “God as grandfather” of “covenant kids.” More could be said but stop for a moment and just let it sink in a bit.
The grandfatherhood of God.
What about great-grandfatherhood? Are we to believe that when God adopts parents that He would seriously tell their grandchildren that He doesn’t want them? Does He really say, “I‘ll take you and your kids, but not your grandkids?” If yes, then why? If not, then…at what generation does the logic no longer hold?
I belabor this point for this reason: It makes clear what was actually said, affirmed, and commended by David Shannon and Gabe Rench and later defended by Toby Sumpter and Jared Longshore. You need to keep this in mind when you consider the defenses they offer when you listen to the 3rd video and read their written arguments. Because in the name of defending the points they actually made (as I’ve just documented) they actually try to defend that which they perhaps wish had been said.
What They Actually Defend
My purpose isn’t to critique every wrong thing that was said in this whole fiasco but rather to focus only on the foolish claims the CP guys made about Baptist theology and the problematic ways that they have responded to it once they were called to account. However, I do want to highlight the following comments by David Shannon. They added nothing to the purported explanation or defense of the erroneous and false accusations cited above, but they do reveal a wrong way of viewing the differences between Baptist and Presbyterian theologies (and therefore, practices).

Shannon: “I love my Baptist brothers more than they love me and I have evidence of that. I am part of a denomination, the CREC, that believes that Baptists and Presbyterians should not separate over the issue of baptism…. Every Sunday I am in communion and fellowship and membership with Baptists inside my Presbyterian church and we’re breaking bread at the table…. The way that Baptists view Presbyterians when it comes to be in relationship to them at the table in communion with them in membership in the church,… is that, ‘We’re friends but you can’t be a member of this church. You can’t have communion with us.’… Like if my children grow up and go to a Baptist church they have to be rebaptized.”

The assumption that a lower view of the importance of baptism is more loving than a higher view is unfounded. It is true that Baptist theology forbids any unbaptized person membership in the church. Of course, Presbyterian theology does the same thing—only those who have been baptized are proper candidates for membership in their churches, too. Baptists and Presbyterians are in complete agreement on this point.
Our differences are found in what constitutes baptism. Presbyterians practice paedobaptism. Baptists do not recognize that practice as legitimate baptism. We can fight (and, through the centuries, have fought) over what constitutes legitimate new covenant baptism, but we agree that only those who have been baptized can be members of our churches. There is nothing unloving to hold, following the clear teaching of the New Testament, the theological conviction that “Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance” (1689 Confession, 29.2). That means, in Baptist theology, only believers can experience biblical baptism. It has nothing to do with love but everything to do with biblical conviction. This is what causes Baptists to say that baptism is for believers alone.
Toby Sumpter doubles down on Shannon’s point a little later when he says that the practice of closed communion by a Baptist church is a “more extreme thing” than what Farley asserted about Baptist theology causing transgenderism. Both he and Shannon are confusing categories. Farley accused “Baptist theology” of causing transgenderism. A common practice for many (most?) Baptist churches for 400 years has been to fence the table against unbaptized people. The former is a scurrilous gratuitous assertion that scored points for being edgy and cool. The latter is rooted in careful exegesis of God’s Word that has resulted in deep doctrinal conviction that can be (and has been) debated. The effort to compare them and then to suggest that a long-held Baptist practice is “more extreme” than a silly assertion is a swing and a miss.
In Baptist theology, only believers can experience biblical baptism. It has nothing to do with love but everything to do with biblical conviction. This is what causes Baptists to say that baptism is for believers alone.
For what it is worth, I, a Baptist, have at times been uninvited to commune at the Lord’s Table with fellow Baptists while worshiping in their churches. By conviction, they regard the Lord’s Supper to be a local church ordinance for local church members. That is not my conviction, but I hardly find their practice offensive, unloving, or extreme. In fact, I rejoice that they actually care enough about it to take it seriously.
All this brings me back to my disappointment over the ways that the CP brothers have handled this whole unfortunate mess. Rather than deal with what was actually said, their defenses and explanations have centered on other things. For example, Shannon stated, “There are Baptist brothers who I don’t fit inside of the same box as American Baptist theological foundation system.” Gabe Rench echoed this defense in his written response to the controversy.

On our CrossPolitic show on Wednesday, my friend Jason Farley said the American Baptist theology turned-secular is why we have the trans culture that we have today (around the 14 minute mark). To be clear, I agree with Jason, and so did Knox and Pastor Toby. Also to be clear, we said the American Baptist theology, not Reformed Baptist theology. Distinctions matter, right?

Yes, distinctions do matter. Five minutes after Farley’s statement that transgenderism is “just American Baptist theology secularized” (in the original podcast) Shannon personifies the type of pushback that they anticipate that statement will evoke. Portraying Baptists who are trying to follow Christ faithfully he says,

There is a group of people that think that what they are doing—they are doing family worship, they are trying their very best, they are seeking to honor God in how they are raising their kids in every way, and saying, “We’re covenantal, we’re Baptist, but we are covenantal. Right?”

Which Baptists other than those who are Reformed would call themselves “covenantal?” It is disingenuous to suggest that Farley’s accusation was a sniper shot at “American Baptists” that excluded “Reformed Baptists” (or any other kind, for that matter) in light of Shannon’s characterization of the kind of Baptist that they are addressing. Further, the follow-up “backstage” episode during which they elaborate the charge is, as I mentioned above, entitled, “The Failure of Baptist Theology (my emphasis).” No distinctions. No qualifications. No exclusions. Just a shotgun blast with #8 shot.
On the episode that attempted to clarify their meaning (“Baptists vs Presbyterians? Christian Unity & Separation on Theological Issues”) Sumpter goes to great lengths to defend what Farley never said. After setting up his point by noting that Presbyterianism “can grow a certain kind of cancer” he remarks, “I’m a Presbyterian. I just hit myself.” For emphasis he added, “Were a bunch of Presbyterians white supremacists in the South? Yes.” Then he makes what he thinks is a valid point.

There’s really no difference in saying that and saying, “Does Baptist theology, can it grow mold? Can it grow cancer? Can it grow tumors? Can it become a corruption?” Who’s gonna say no? And, if Jason Farley says, “Hey, one of the tumors that Baptist theology can grow is radical individualism”…. James White is not even denying it; he’s saying non-confessional Baptist theology… is particularly prone to grow this kind of mold, to grow this kind of cancer. Does that lead to radical individualism… Does that turn into transgenderism? Yes.

I agree with this completely. “Who’s gonna say no?” But that is a different conversation from the one provoked by Farley’s broadside. Sumpter seems to think that Farley spoke in the subjunctive: “If Jason Farley says, ‘Hey, one of the tumors that Baptist theology can grow is radical individualism….,’” If that is what Farley had said, then no harm, no foul. Play on. But Farley spoke in the indicative. He asserted a statement as a fact. What he actually said is that the Baptist conviction of baptizing only those who confess Jesus Christ as Lord “is the cause of” transgenderism.
I wish someone would actually try to defend what he actually said and not what they might have wished he said. If the theological convictions and practices of Baptists are responsible for the transgenderism in our culture then at least try to make an argument to demonstrate it. Don’t take the worst examples of a theological position, or worse yet, a perversion of a position, highlight its deficiencies, and then claim to have made your case. If Baptist theology is the problem, then at least marshal some theological arguments.
The lack of such argumentation underscores another weakness of all the responses thus far, and that is the lack of any biblical engagement at all. I know some Presbyterians think my Baptist impulse to want actual biblical texts to undergird theological arguments and positions is a quaint type of biblicism. But if you are going to charge “Baptist theology” with failure and with causing the transgender movement in our culture, is it too much to expect at least a modicum of actual biblical exposition showing the error of that theology? If that is a request too great to bear could we at least have some proof texts cited? As I read the written responses and watched the videos it became increasingly evident that if the Bible were a virus then the CP shows and defenses would be in no danger of catching it.
If you are going to charge “Baptist theology” with failure and with causing the transgender movement in our culture, is it too much to expect at least a modicum of actual biblical exposition showing the error of that theology?
Well, much, much more could be said about the failures of the CP brothers in how they have handled the stink they have created. Rather than simply acknowledge the facts—that Jason Farley laid an egg with a slanderous statement that should be walked back—they have doubled down, tried to convince us of what we should have heard, suggested that those who find his accusation scurrilous and indefensible simply don’t know how to communicate like men, with a serrated edge, or especially like Jesus. As one young pastor friend graciously put it, these responses are “honestly close to gaslighting.”
While some might be impressed with all these moves, I, and I am guessing many others, have seen this play before. Rather than take the “L” and move forward, the typical way that most contemporary Christian organizations respond to legitimate concerns is to dismiss them as missing the point, being untoward, or having no relevance. Then the wagons are circled in hopes that the news cycle passes quickly.
Such responses always leave me cold because they are no different from those who have no Savior. Christians have no reason to resist owning our sin and failures. Our Lord was crucified and raised from the dead. We don’t have to pretend that we live sin-free lives or try to obfuscate or coverup when sin or shortcoming in our lives and ministries come to light. We can own it, repent, make things right, and move on in faith.
But that doesn’t seem to be the evangelical way anymore.
I hope better for the CP men.
After writing this I learned that both Jeff Wright and James White have responded to this fiasco. Both are worth your attention.

Follow Tom Ascol:

Tweet Share

Romans 1:16 is central to the Book of Romans, central to the teaching of the New Testament, and central to the entirety of the Bible. Here we find the theme of Romans, the focal point of the Bible, and the fundamental foundation of Christianity.
The gospel, the good news of the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Christ for sinners, is the power of God for salvation. Further, the power of God in the gospel does not stop at the work of Christ, but even with the Holy Spirit taking this gospel and applying it to our hearts by sovereign grace through faith.
Now, since all of this is true, why would we be ashamed of the gospel as Paul says he is not in Romans 1:16?
It is because when we really understand the gospel, it is both offensive and foolish to a lost and dying world. The real temptation every generation of Christians face is to alter the gospel ever so slightly so as to find ourselves in better harmony with the world around us.
The impulse for many today is to nuance the gospel into oblivion. Remove the offense. Remove the foolishness. Winsome it into something more palatable. But if we do these things, we ultimately lose the gospel.
The real temptation every generation of Christians face is to alter the gospel ever so slightly so as to find ourselves in better harmony with the world around us.
Churches today must not be ashamed of the gospel. Here are four ways, then, every local church must respond to it:

Believe it

The gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes. Faith is not merely understanding the facts of the gospel and believing they are true. It is letting go of every work and it is turning from our sins, and it is trusting Christ personally as our only way to God. As the only means of the forgiveness of sins. As the only way to be counted righteous with a righteousness that is not our own but Christ’s imputed to us by grace through faith.
Pastors and church members must remember this is our only way to God. Your morals, your works, your politeness – none of these things will bring you salvation. None of these things will satisfy God’s holy justice. You must stake all that you are and all that you have and all that you do upon this bedrock foundation
Two reasons to remind us of this:
First, there is such a thing as unconverted church members and even pastors. My favorite story might be that Elias Keach the son of Benjamin Keach who was preaching one day in 1686 and suddenly became aware of his sin and was converted by his own preaching.
The Scriptures warn us repeatedly of false conversions (see Matthew 7:21-23). Anything else in this post about the gospel is superfluous if we do not first embrace it by faith.
The second reason I remind us about believing the gospel is to remind us that our churches do not need our power, but God’s. The power of the church is not in our creativity or in the public approval of the masses. The power of the church is the power of God in the gospel. Do you believe this? We are not the ones who make the gospel work. God is.
First response, then, believe it. 2nd response:

Defend it

There are millions of false gospels in the world today. There is the false gospel of abortion that says the child must die so I can live how I want. My salvation is in my autonomy. There is the false gospel of the Roman Catholic Church or the false gospel of Jehovah Witnesses or Mormons, or the false religion of Islam or the list goes on and on and on and on.
Because the gospel is the power of the church, we must draw a hard line here in defending it. We must carefully guard the church from false gospels ranging from open and blatant heresy to the subtle idolatry of the age.
We must make sure that all we are doing from our worship to our outreach to our fellowship is centered around the gospel and not something else. We must be willing to cut out anything that is detracting from the gospel or anything that is seeking to replace the gospel or anything that is seeking to add to or take away from the gospel.
This also means we must care about church discipline because church discipline is dealing with people whose lives are not adorning the gospel. Caring about church discipline is defending the gospel. If we do not care about defending the gospel, our churches will eventually lose it.
The man who buys a car and puts thousands of dollars in the stereo system every year, neglecting the engine, will eventually have a loud car with no power. That’s what a church is that focuses on all the external things and neglects or distorts the gospel: A lot of noise with no power.
Believe it. Defend it. 3rdly:

Grow in it

Since the gospel is the power of God for salvation and the power of the local church, then I must give my life to growing in it. We serve one another by growing in the gospel together.
First, I mean growing in knowledge of the gospel. Don’t you long to know God more deeply? I must study the sound doctrine of the Bible. I must read the Bible daily. I must study the glories of Christ, the wretchedness of sin, the beauty of the church, the work of the Holy Spirit, the sovereignty of the Father, and so on and so forth.
Secondly, though, I also mean growing in the application of the gospel to my heart, mind, soul, and entire life. The power of God in the gospel is not only for our regeneration and justification, but also our sanctification.
Thus, I seek to apply the gospel to my life daily. I apply the gospel to my marriage. I lead through Christ. I repent before my wife and children when I sin. I apply the gospel to relationships in the church in cultivating patience in my heart like God is patient with me. I apply the gospel to prayer. I am weak and needy, but Christ is mediating for me, and the Spirit is groaning with me.
The point is, local churches desire to show the world that the gospel is not only these great truths of the Scripture but that these truths come to bear in our homes and in our jobs and in our worship and in our fellowship and in our lives.
Believe it. Defend it. Grow in it. And finally, every local church must respond to the gospel with a commitment to:

Preach it

Now, in one sense church members preach the gospel to each other regularly in conversations and fellowship with one another. They also preach the gospel through the visible actions of the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
But I also mean here for the church to actually preach the gospel and encourage its pastors to faithfully preach the gospel. John Gill says those ashamed of the gospel are all those
“who hide and conceal it, who have abilities to preach it, and do not: or who preach, but not the Gospel; or who preach the Gospel only in part, who own…in private, [what] they will not preach in public, and use ambiguous words…to cover themselves; who blend the Gospel with their own inventions, seek to please men, and live upon popular applause, regard their own interest, and not Christ’s, and can’t bear the reproach of his Gospel.”
There are so many ways that we can be ashamed in preaching the gospel and some of the ways we might not even realize. We can preach the hope of heaven without the demands of repentance. We can minimize certain sins afraid of offending someone or a group of people. We can scale back on the sovereignty of God because someone might disagree with us. We can tolerate easy-believism because we are weary of fighting the battle over the biblical definition of a Christian.
But I am pleading with local churches to not only love the gospel but to hold pastors accountable to passionately, unambiguously, and courageously preach the Gospel. Preach the gospel, the whole gospel, and nothing but the gospel.
This doesn’t mean we don’t preach secondary issues. I’m a Baptist. Of course, I love secondary issues! But it means all that I preach flows out of and connects back to, the gospel.
For example, do you know why I believe in believer’s baptism by immersion? Yes, it is the biblical way to practice the ordinance, but this is because only believer’s baptism by immersion accurately and consistently adorns the gospel. Only believer’s baptism displays a proper sign and symbol of the work of Christ.
I’m simply saying here that all of our preaching must be saturated with the gospel. We’ve got nothing to preach without the gospel. And we must remember the power is not in the preaching in and of itself. If our hope was in our preaching, we would be miserable. But our hope is not in the power of preaching. We preach, and we preach powerfully and passionately, because our hope is in the power of God in the gospel.
Additionally, I also mean in this point that the church must proclaim the gospel verbally to a lost a dying world. We must go and we must proclaim the gospel to the masses. The Word of God is living and active and as we proclaim it extolling the victory of Christ over death, over sin, over the devil, over governments, over all, we can have supreme confidence that God is using it.
And there will be seasons of Whitefield preaching where people are coming to Christ in droves it seems. And there may be seasons of Judson preaching where you labor in the gospel for 7 years before even seeing 1 convert.
But whether our proclamation results in one or one million converts, we rejoice, because it is all about God’s power and for God’s glory. It is the power of God in the gospel that saves sinners. Therefore, I must preach it. I must share it. I must pass out tracts and have the tough conversations with coworkers or family members and stand my ground here.
Imagine a restaurant owner ashamed of the menu. How much worse a church ashamed of the gospel! A fish ashamed of the water or a dog ashamed of his bark is better than a local church ashamed of the gospel.
We must preach the gospel. When a church tries to do mission or outreach without actually proclaiming the gospel, we are exposing that we think we know a better strategy for reaching the world than God.  We are saying that the power of our ingenuity or the power of our kindness is more central and more of a priority than the proclamation of the gospel.
The Word of God is living and active and as we proclaim it extolling the victory of Christ over death, over sin, over the devil, over governments, over all, we can have supreme confidence that God is using it..
I am communicating to us a very simple truth but one that can profoundly transform our churches and our communities. Do not be ashamed. Let us preach the gospel.
I’m not saying try to winsomely convince people to try out Jesus. I’m not saying attempt to influence people by how nice you are.  I’m not saying preach the gospel at all times and when necessary, use words.
No. I’m saying words are necessary. Extol the excellencies of King Jesus, all that He is, all that He has done, and all that He commands form the world. John Gill says, to be unashamed of the gospel is “to preach it…fully and faithfully, plainly and consistently, openly and publicly, and boldly, in the face of all opposition.”
Local churches, then, must preach the gospel this way. Preach the gospel unashamedly inside your church. Preach it boldly outside your church. And preach it all places in between. Preach it to your own soul. Preach it to your children. Preach it to your family. Preach it to the lost man serving you coffee. Preach it to the godless men and women God has placed in your town.
Preach, preach, preach, and preach and then: keep preaching. The ministry of the local church is gospel ministry. And true gospel ministry is local church ministry.
Let us take our stand here. Let the culture throw at us what it may. Let them do their worst. Let them laugh and scorn and get angry. They may be able to cancel us, but they cannot cancel the gospel.
Arrest us. Try us. Beat us. Kill us. But we aren’t stopping. We have a message to proclaim in the name of our King. And our King says, the gates of hell will not prevail against the church.
In the 7th-Century B.C. the city of Troy stood strong against Greek armies for a decade. The big city gates were impenetrable. But the Greeks got sneaky, deceived the Trojans into thinking they had left, and snuck in with a wooden horse.
But this is not the church’s practice with he gates of hell, which are far stronger than Troy’s gates. We don’t sneak in. We confidently announce we are coming in. We are charging right through, and you can’t do anything about it. We are rescuing sinners. We are snatching some form the very flames. And there is nothing you can do to stop us because of the power of God in the gospel.
Therefore, brethren, we will not soften the message. We will not skirt the issue. We will not tamper with the Word. We will not attempt to make it more palatable.
We will preach the gospel and rest in its power for our church. We are not interested in pragmatism. We are not interested in worldly ideas. We are not interested in adaptation. We are not interested in surrender or compromise in any way.
We are unashamed.  Therefore, we will believe the gospel. We will defend the gospel. We will grow in the gospel. And we will preach the gospel.
Christ is King.

Tweet Share

This article originally appeared at Standing For Freedom.

Ferguson marked a turning point in the evangelical world on discussions about race and the Church — and not in a good way.
On August 9, 2014, Michael Brown, an 18-year-old black man, was lethally shot by a white policeman, Darren Wilson, in an act of self-defense. Officer Wilson was found justified in his actions in every follow-on investigation, including one undertaken by President Obama’s Department of Justice, then led by Attorney General Eric Holder. CBS News reported that “Federal officials concluded there was no evidence to disprove Wilson’s testimony that he feared for his safety.”
Furthermore, the official DOJ investigation concluded,“…nor was there reliable evidence that Michael Brown had his hands up when he was shot.”
It was almost a year later, and the false narrative of “Hands up, don’t shoot” had already turned into a nationwide rallying cry, but even the progressive Washington Post columnist, Jonathan Capehart, ultimately conceded this fact.
Writing in response to the DOJ investigations that cleared Officer Wilson, Capehart admitted that the reports “forced me to deal with two uncomfortable truths: Brown never surrendered with his hands up, and Wilson was justified in shooting Brown.”
That’s right: “Hands up, don’t shoot” was a lie. Always has been. I wonder how many Christians realize that?
Sadly, the obvious answer is “not nearly enough.” Because as we look back over the last eight years, it’s clear now that the lies of Ferguson served to kindle the raging, destructive fires of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. Far more than the death of Trayvon Martin, it was the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson that birthed the current (though fading) “racial reconciliation” craze that swept across American Christianity, smuggling in all kinds of unbiblical beliefs and practices.
This was a movement that completely suckered many evangelical leaders and pastors (Voddie Baucham being a notable exception)—a triumph of pathos over logos—who happily repeated the slogan, put #BLM in their bios, marched in the rallies, and began to chastise their white congregants for not being committed enough to this ill-defined and extra-biblical notion of “racial reconciliation.”
How many pulpits were filled with pastors who lamented another instance of “racial tragedy” the Sunday after Ferguson, even though no evidence existed to support such a claim? Those prayers were lies; those pastors should repent.
The way that so many evangelicals fell hook, line, and sinker for the “Ferguson narrative” is all the more appalling when you consider that the official BLM organization is committed to disrupting “the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure,” as well as being a “queer‐affirming network.” While they claim they exist for the sake of racial justice, The Heritage Foundation explains that “a closer look reveals BLM to be a revolutionary movement, rooted in Marxism, that wants to dismantle Western society.”
Has BLM made life better for black Americans? Of course not. Their movement is arguably to blame for disastrous policing shortages in major cities, like Chicago, where homicides, violent crime, and gang activity have hit levels not seen in decades, while arrests are at record-breaking lows. And the founders of BLM are under investigation for potentially misusing millions in donations for personal benefit.
Why retread this ground now? Because this history is an indispensable background for the continuing conversations about the role, purpose, and priority of diversity in the Church — and in Heaven.
Given that the conversation about “systemic racism” in America and in the Church is largely built on lies like Ferguson, it’s not surprising that the resulting — and continuing — conversation is confused and unbiblical.
This was on clear display this past week when megachurch pastor Rick Warren sent a tweet that concluded with this rather remarkable claim: “If diversity scares you, you’ll hate heaven.”
It was one of those comments that made me stop and go, “Beg pardon?”
The entirety of his statement read: “In Heaven, YOU will be a minority! Get used to it. Most Christ-followers in the world don’t look like you, think like you, or vote like you. They’re saved by grace thru faith, Jesus-lovers from every era of time & place. If diversity scares you, you’ll hate heaven. Rev. 5:9.”

In Heaven, YOU will be a minority!Get used to it.Most Christ-followers in the world don’t look like you, think like you, or vote like you. They’re saved by grace thru faith, Jesus-lovers from every era of time & place
If diversity scares you, you’ll hate heaven.Rev. 5:9
— Rick Warren (@RickWarren) July 22, 2022

While it’s not clear what this comment was prompted by, it’s a good example of what I am calling “divisive diversity rhetoric” and a great example of how Revelation 5 is often misused.
The first way this is divisive is that implies that we know who will be a “minority” in Heaven. No one, to my knowledge, has any reliable data on the demographic composition of the Celestial City. God saves who He will. Yes, in Revelation 5:9 we are told that Jesus Christ “purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation” — but we aren’t given a percentile-based breakdown of this redeemed gathering. God saves according to grace, not according to race.
Second, I do know this: No one in Heaven is going to care about things like “being a minority” or a “majority.” Those are manmade terms and concepts, the “things of earth” that “will grow strangely dim in the light of His glory and grace.” The hope of Heaven isn’t that it’s going to be a super diverse gathering, just the kind to make all the closet racist Christians squirm. No, the hope of Heaven is that we will all experience perfect, unceasing fellowship with our Triune Creator God.
Christians aren’t going to be gathered around the throne of God, glancing around at each other and trying to size up apparent ethnic allotments. Rather, we will all, in unified spirit and wonder, behold our God face-to-face. We will be worshipping Him with our glorified bodies, free from sin, sickness, and death, and praising Him for His goodness, love, and majesty forever.
No one in Heaven is going to care about things like “being a minority” or a “majority.” Those are manmade terms and concepts, the “things of earth” that “will grow strangely dim in the light of His glory and grace.”
The hope and focus of Heaven actually isn’t Revelation 5:9, its Revelation 21:3-4:
“And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, ‘Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them, and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.’”
Third, and finally, here is another fatal flaw with Warren’s comments and this broader way of thinking — as informed by lies like Ferguson. This misstep gets at the shoddy philosophical foundations of the statement, the overall lack of coherent logic, and the theological mistake.
It’s as simple as this: Hell is a very diverse place, too.
This isn’t just a throwaway point; it’s crucially important. Along with tweets like Warren’s, I hear people say all the time, “I want my church to reflect Heaven more by being more diverse.” Okay, well, Hell is also diverse. In fact, Hell might be the most diverse place in existence. Consider the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 7:13-14:
“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.”
The hard reality is that Hell is every person’s default destination. This is because we are all born sinners, inheriting guilt from the shared father of all humankind, regardless of your race, the first man — Adam.
In Adam, all fall. All Europeans. All Asians. All Africans. Everybody.
Your race plays no part in your damnation — your sin does that. And your race plays no part in your salvation — your repentance and trust in Jesus Christ and belief in the Gospel does that.
So, I guess, if “diversity scares you” then you’re not going to like Hell either. See how silly that sounds?
It’s that point right there that exposes the biblical bankruptcy of Warren’s admonition. Diversity isn’t the point of Heaven. Nor is it the point of Hell. The pressing question of our final resting place is whether you are spending it with God as a member of His family in eternal joy, or whether you are suffering under God’s just judgment for your sin in eternal damnation. I guarantee that in both end-states no one cares one bit about “diversity.”
I’m not the first to make this observation. Mark Dever, the senior pastor at Capitol Hill Baptist Church, has said something very similar. In fact, given the fact that I’ve listened to more sermons from Mark Dever than from any other preacher out there, I probably picked it up from him in the first place.
Preaching at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Mark said: “Diversity is very common in Hell. Diversity is not a uniquely Christian trait. Unity in diversity is what is unique to Christians — the unity we have in the Spirit.”
Mark is correct. For Christians, it’s the unity in the Spirit that counts—and that’s what will count in Heaven as well.
I want to make a qualification to Dever’s addition. Even non-Christians can have “unity in diversity” when they unite around shared affections, such as love for nation. Unity in diversity is not, in fact, an exclusive or unique Christian trait. But unity in Christ — now that’s uniquely Christian.
Let’s turn off the detour and get back onto the main path. What do we conclude? Hell is diverse. Heaven is diverse. Okay, then, that’s settled.
But what about here on earth? I’ve seen pastors argue that a more diverse church equals a more holy church. It’s funny, though, how such standards are never applied to Kenyan churches. Or I’ve heard it said that if a church is more diverse on earth, it looks more like Heaven. I’ve dealt with this already, but consider, again, the logical implications were such a statement true. It would mean that a faithful, Gospel-preaching church located in a 99 percent black community, say somewhere in Baltimore, that is almost entirely made up of black congregants, doesn’t look much like Heaven. Does that mean it looks more like Hell? Of course not!
We must point out once more (even as our pointing finger is getting sore) that it’s never the black churches, Hispanic churches, or Korean churches that these people have in mind when they lob these bombs. It’s just the majority white church in rural Ohio caught between their “look more like Heaven” crosshairs. But with a little bit of reason, we can see that either way, it’s truly a meaningless metric.
Because it’s not the diversity that makes a diverse church “look like Heaven.” It’s how the members of any local church treat each other (and non-Christians) that counts. For example, if you were to just physically survey a multi-ethnic congregation, in a snapshot, what does that picture tell you about how this diverse body loves one another, sacrificially gives and serves each other, pushes each other on to love Jesus more, and helps each other repent of sin? Nothing. You might have the most diverse church in the world, but if that church is defined by division, slander, quarrels, and hate, it doesn’t look like Heaven at all.
In our age of postmodern multiculturalism, we have lost sight of the basics, of ground truths, and we have imported sloppy thinking into the Church. This might sound shocking, but it’s true: There is nothing intrinsically valuable about diversity.
What matters are the beliefs and values that draw diverse people to them. In this case, those beliefs are in Christ and the Gospel.
When all the redeemed stand around the throne of God in perfect worship, it won’t be race that matters, but grace. Our culture is obsessed with a skin-deep diversity that demands cognitive conformity. But the Church should reject such petty, small-minded paradigms and demand that we unite in truth and the great things of God — on earth and in Heaven.
What matters is being humble, respectful, and willing to learn from others of different races and backgrounds, all while seeking and prioritizing objective and transcendent truth together. What matters is if a church on earth is “speaking the truth in love” and, by doing so, growing “to become in every respect the mature body of Him who is the head, that is, Christ. From Him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work” (Ephesians 3:15-16).
Our culture is obsessed with a skin-deep diversity that demands cognitive conformity. The Church should reject such petty, small-minded paradigms. We, of course, want (and demand) unity on the confessional matters of orthodox Christian faith. But we don’t seek manufactured diversity — by no means. Rather we aim, per James 2:1-13, to “show no partiality.” Every local church, no matter where they are located, should tear down any barriers to entry built on sinful human partiality. Beyond that, they must preach the Gospel, love their neighbors, and trust God with both the growth, and the composition, of their local gathering.
Hectoring faithful Christians about being a minority in Heaven isn’t helpful, it’s divisive. Telling mono-ethnic churches in mono-ethnic settings that they aren’t as holy as the multicultural church in downtown Manhattan isn’t loving, it’s divisive. This is “divisive diversity rhetoric,” and it needs to end.
Yes, God is gathering a people for Himself from every tribe, tongue, nation, and language. What a great reason for rejoicing! The Gospel will go to the ends of the earth. Christ the conquering King guarantees it. But it’s God who is doing this, not mankind. Revelation 5:9 isn’t an imperative for local churches here on earth to reflect such a diverse gathering here and now or be found unfaithful. Far from it. It is a glorious indicative, a statement about what God Himself is doing and will do by the power of His Spirit and the preaching of His Gospel. Christians misstep when we mistake indicatives for imperatives. In those missteps, we can needlessly divide the Church.
Instead, Christians should strive to hold fast to the truth, both about what happens in our world, like in Ferguson, and what can be found in the pages of the Bible, like in Revelation.
Let’s get back to the truth. And by doing so, leave behind the last decade of divisive diversity rhetoric, grounded in unbiblical and illogical conceptions of what Heaven will look like. Our churches here on earth will be better—and more heavenly—for it.

Tweet Share

As I have written elsewhere, we are living through a famine of sound moral reasoning in the evangelical world today. The multiple failures at this point reveal an unbiblical separation between theology and ethics. The idea that one can live rightly while believing wrongly is foolish, and while right belief does not guarantee right living at every point, theology does provide the basis for judging the rightness or wrongness of actions.  That is, when a person acts contrary to what he believes his theology provides a corrective if it is allowed to function in that way on the practical level. But when one’s theology is faulty then ethical failure tends to be an outworking of that wrong belief. Rather than provide a needed corrective to bad living, bad theology confirms it.
For example, if one holds to an antinomian view of grace in salvation, then living immorally is fortified by cavalier platitudes like “once saved, always saved” and “since where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, let’s continue in sin so that grace may abound.” Yet, if grace is rightly understood as working a change in the believer so that he pursues a life of holiness, then immoral attitudes and actions can be corrected by the sound theology of that understanding.
In many ways our evangelical forebears understood this relationship far better than we do today. As such, they can help provide some help to us sharpen our moral reasoning. One such helpful teacher from our Baptist heritage is John Dagg. He was the first Baptist theologian in the southern United States to write a systematic theology. Along with that he produced A Treatise on Church Order which he considered to be the Second Part of his Manual of Theology.
A lesser known volume that Dagg wrote is his Elements of Moral Science. The book is a rich resource in thinking and acting Christianly. Though some of the specifics may be dated, the principles Dagg teaches are timeless. One such principle is the wickedness of evil surmising. He addresses this issue in chapter 8, section 8 of his book, which is found on pages 195-197 of the 1860 edition. While we do not hear much about this topic in our day, Dagg demonstrates that sincere Christians should work hard to avoid falling into this pattern of immoral judgment.

Evil Surmising

Reputation is the opinion of the community; and since I am one of the community, my opinion concerning my neighbor, is a part of his reputation. If I think less of him than I ought, I so far do wrong to his reputation. Hence we do wrong to others, when we judge them too unfavorably; and the wrong is not confined to them, but rebounds on ourselves. The habit of judging unfavorably, hardens the heart against the social affections and sympathies, on which our happy intercourse with others greatly depends. It is directly opposed to the charity which “thinketh no evil;”1 and tends inevitably to cut us off from the sympathies and affections of others, and the approbation of heaven. “Judge not, that ye be not judged; for with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.”2
Love to our neighbor will incline us to admit his sincerity, and attribute to him no other motives than those from which he professes to act. We resent the wrong, if others ascribe to us motives which we disclaim; and we ought, therefore, to avoid such judgment of others. Some men earn a reputation for insincerity, to which they are justly entitled, and there is no necessity that we should be blind to their true character; but there is no merit in being the first to suspect the evil designs of others. Some persons pride themselves on their deep insight into human character; and when some unlovely feature, before unsuspected, has been disclosed, they are ready to exclaim, I told you so; but they do not inform us how many times they have suspected evil which never existed. They are perhaps deceived as often as the less suspicious; but if they are not, it is better to be deceived sometimes, than to cultivate in ourselves the habit of thinking evil; to keep the mind in perpetual disquiet, with the apprehension of suffering wrong from all who approach us; and to banish all confidence from the intercourse of human society. To deal with honest men as if they were rogues, is a maxim which savors of the wisdom from beneath, rather than of that which cometh from above. The peace and happiness of human society depend much on the cultivation of love and mutual confidence; and it is better that men should be surprised and shocked by occasional abuse of confidence, than that they should be perpetually prepared for it by sleepless suspicion.
Much of the strife which disturbs society, originates in evil surmising. An injurious suspicion once entertained, cannot be concealed without great difficulty. If not expressed in words, it produces a cautiousness in action, by which the other party is led to suspect and resent its existence. Mutual suspicion being engendered, a fire is kindled within, which refuses to be smothered. If you would avoid strife and rage, check the very beginnings of evil surmising.
Since the most virtuous have imperfections, it is unjust, because of one failure, to judge the whole character corrupt. Peter denied his Master; but he notwithstanding loved and honored him, and suffered martyrdom in his cause. We ought not to judge a man destitute of any particular virtue, because he fails to exercise it in some one instance; and if it should be proved that he is totally destitute of a particular virtue, we ought not thence to conclude, that he is destitute of all virtue. Even the truly pious may have a sin that does easily beset them;1 and those who have not renounced all for Christ, may, like the young ruler whom Jesus loved,2 possess traits of character worthy to be loved and admired.
We should be careful not to suffer our estimate of others to be determined by their regard for us. “Sinners love those that love them;”3 but righteous judgment is not founded on considerations so selfish. If a man. has treated me unkindly, it does not follow that he is a bad man. Unkindness to me is not worse than unkindness to any other person; and if we strike from our list of friends all who have ever treated any one amiss, we shall have few names remaining. If we detect with keen perception, and decry with bold vociferation, the faults of our enemies or opponents, while we are blind to the faults of our friends, and those of our party; we do not judge according to righteousness. We should school ourselves to estimate every man, not by his bearing toward us, but by his true character.[1]

1 1 Cor. 13:5.
2 Matt. 7:1, 2.
1 Heb. 12:1.
2 Mark 10:21.
3 Luke 6:32.

Tweet Share

One of great failures of modern evangelical Christians that has been undeniably made manifest over the last few years is the lack of moral reasoning that plagues so many of our number—even those regarded as leaders. I have commented on this and written about it in relation to racial tensions and abortion and politics. At the bottom of this deficiency, I have argued, is a failure to recognize and think deeply about the teaching of God’s Word on law and gospel. Many of our leaders have rightly encouraged us to keep “the gospel above all” but have done so in ways that suggest there is no place for the law.
One of the great needs of our day is to recover what was better understood by many of our forebears about the relationship between law and gospel. Specifically, we need to face up to the fact that the God who gave us His gospel has also given us His law and He cares as much about His law being obeyed as He does His gospel being believed. Such understanding is no threat to the gospel. On the contrary, it exalts the gospel and protects it from antinomianism on the one hand and legalism on the other. In fact, the gospel cannot be properly appreciated apart from a recognition and appreciation of the law. The very subsoil of Mount Calvary is Mount Sinai.
God loves His law by which He rules us as much as He loves His gospel by which He saves us.
This is what I mean: Without the law, there is no sin and without the knowledge of the law there can be no recognition of sin (Romans 4:15, 5:13, 7:7-8; 1 John 3:4). Without sin, there is no need for grace—specifically, the grace of God in the gospel. The gospel—the person and work of Jesus—is for sinners (Luke 5:32). What Jesus did to accomplish our salvation—living a righteous life and dying a sacrificial, atoning death—was necessary because of our violation of God’s law. When a sinner turns from sin and trusts Christ for salvation, he is credited both with the righteousness that Christ earned by His life and the payment that He made by His death.
Such a saved sinner now loves Jesus and wants to please the God who freely saved Him at such a great cost. What does that look like? As Jesus put it, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (John 14:15). In other words, true discipleship under the lordship of Jesus looks like a life of faith in Christ that is committed to keeping His commandments. Anything less is not biblical Christianity. It is false faith. Jesus makes this plain when He asks, “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I tell you?” (Luke 6:46; cf. Matthew 7:21-23; 1 John 2:3-6).
God loves His law by which He rules us as much as He loves His gospel by which He saves us.
If a Christian fails to grasp this and order his life accordingly, he will not be able to see his way out of the moral morass that afflicts so many sectors of evangelicalism in our day. What J. Gresham Machen wrote about the law a century ago is as true today as it was then.

A new and more powerful proclamation of [the] law is perhaps the most pressing need of the hour; men would have little difficulty with the gospel if they had only learned the lesson of the law….So it always is; a low view of law always brings legalism in religion; a high view of law makes a man a seeker after grace. Pray God that the high view may again prevail (What is Faith, 141-42).

The only hope of being delivered from the tyranny of ever-changing, man-made standards of righteousness is to be clearly committed to and advocates of God’s one, unchanging standard as summarized in the Ten Commandments. Without this, Christian moral reasoning is lost and virtue and righteousness will be dictated by the most effective mob. But, understanding and embracing such biblical wisdom grants freedom and strength to withstand the mobs and refuse to kowtow to their demands of obeisance to their false gods and compliance to their false standards. Christians who are committed to trust God’s gospel and obey His commandments will, with joy in their hearts, pursue the path of true righteousness regardless of cost or consequence.

Follow Tom Ascol:

Tweet Share

In the providence of God, the Supreme Court’s decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was handed down five days after I began an exposition of Romans 13:1-7. My first sermon on that passage (which came during an ongoing study of the whole letter) involved an overview of it, outlining the argument that Paul makes and the way that he makes it. I also explained the nature of authority and the jurisdictional realms in which God has delegated His authority in His world, namely the home, the church, and the state.
My sermon after that decision focused on verse 1, which states the thesis for the whole paragraph: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” Because God has instituted civil governments, everyone is obligated to be submissive to them. The idea of government and governmental authorities comes from God. This is a fundamental truth that all Christians must remember as we work out our public, and especially our political, theology. We are submissive to governmental authorities because we are subject to Jesus Christ, who possesses “all authority” (Matthew 28:18).
We must remember this as we think about the Supreme Court’s recent decision (in Dobbs) to overturn the 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion in the United States. Because God has even the heart of kings in His hands (Proverbs 21:1) we know that, ultimately, that decision is His work. Since it is a work that offers some legal protection to unborn children, everyone who loves mercy and justice should unashamedly rejoice. By its ruling the current justices determined that Roe v. Wade was an unjust decision—a mistake made by an earlier iteration of the court.
No one can legitimately doubt the accuracy of this ruling. In 1973 the right to abortion was invented out of thin air and attributed to the fourteenth amendment. But any honest reader will study in vain to find the right to kill unborn babies in that amendment. Certainly, those who adopted the amendment in 1868 had no thought of it being used to justify abortion.
The idea of government and governmental authorities comes from God. This is a fundamental truth that all Christians must remember as we work out our public, and especially our political, theology.
So, praise God that on June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed an unrighteous decision by overturning Roe v. Wade. It was the right decision before both the law of God—“You shall not murder”—and before the Constitution of the United States—“No State shall…deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
The United States federal government is comprised of a chief executive (the President) and representatives (Congressmen & women and Senators) who are all elected by the citizens. These elected officials are obligated to carry out their responsibilities according to the rules that are established in a written constitution.
The third branch of our federal government is the judiciary with the Supreme Court being the highest court in our land. It has the responsibility of settling questions and controversies arising under the laws of our nation. Its job is to interpret the United States Constitution and render judgments on the constitutionality of all lesser laws or actions that become the occasion of dispute.
Chiseled into the Supreme Court building in Washington DC, just above the main entrance, are the words,
EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW
That motto expresses the primary responsibility of the Supreme Court—to ensure that the citizens of the United States are granted equal justice under the laws of our land, the highest of which is the constitution itself.
By reversing Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court has properly carried out its duty to at least begin the process of restoring equal protection under the law for the most vulnerable among us—unborn babies. So, lovers of justice rejoice and should thank God for His kind provision of this decision.
We who know the Lord should especially rejoice over God’s kindness in causing those justices to make the ruling that they did. Their decision brings our nation back into a closer alignment to the governing authorities that God has appointed over us in the civil arena.
What I mean is this. The God of whom Job 12:23 says, “He makes nations great, and he destroys them; he enlarges nations, and leads them away,” the God who establishes empires and casts them down, this God—the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ—in His providence established the United States of America in such a fashion that our highest governing authority is not a person or an office, but a document. And that document—the Constitution of the United States—was recognized and submitted to by the Supreme Court when they overturned Roe v. Wade and began to recognize that unborn babies deserve equal justice under law just like every other image-bearer of God.
By reversing Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court has properly carried out its duty to at least begin the process of restoring equal protection under the law for the most vulnerable among us—unborn babies.
So, we praise God for ordaining government and for providentially establishing the government of the United States as a constitutional republic. We further praise Him that the highest court in the judicial branch of our government properly exercised their authority in making a righteous ruling by overturning the wicked ruling of Roe v. Wade.
While this does not mean that unborn babies will now be afforded equal protection under the law, it is a step in the right direction. Let’s continue to call on our civil authorities at every level and in every branch of government to exercise their God-given authority in ways that He has prescribed. And let us continue to be subject to them out of our greater submission to the King of all Kings and Lord of all lords, Jesus Christ.

Follow Tom Ascol:

Tweet Share