Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.— Romans 14:4 —
On the backside of a Sharp Top Mountain in Southwest Virginia lies the wreckage of World War II vintage air craft. On a training mission in February 1943, five airmen lost their lives as they flew a “low-level nighttime navigational” mission, a mission that ended with tragedy and the debris of a B-25 littered throughout the wooded hillside.
Today, if you leave the trail on Sharp Top and look for the fuselage, engine, wings, and other parts of the crash site, you will find a plaque memorializing the event. On an otherwise unmarked hillside, this memorial is the only sign explaining the mangled metal left standing in the woods. Yet my point in bringing up this piece of atlas obscura is not to focus on the plane crash, but to liken it to the state of our religious liberty today. Today, we can find scattered pieces of religious freedom in our country, but by and large most Christians do not know how they got there, how to assemble them, or how to make them fly. For instance, the recent TGC article undermining the sincerely held beliefs of Christians is a prime example.
In that article, Christian lawyer, John Melcon, explains “Why Your Employer Can Deny Your ‘Religious’ Vaccine Exemption.” In the article, he explained the way “religious exemption laws” work and cited three bad arguments for seeking a religious exemption: (1) personal autonomy, (2) my body is my temple, and (3) abortion complicity. In his estimation, the abortion argument “is perhaps the strongest case,” but by comparison to the welcome use of other drugs (e.g., “Tylenol, Claritin, or their favorite anti-aging skin cream“), he insists that this argument is most likely an example of great inconsistency. (N.B. For a quick response to the Tylenol retort, see this Liberty Counsel post).
In his other two arguments, however, the claim is not inconsistency, but denying that personal autonomy or bodily choice is a truly religious reason for seeking a religious exemption. For Melcon, this leads him to reserve religious exemptions for later, greater threats to the Christian faith. It is this argument that I want to address. Instead of addressing his three examples, which are presented with a striking likeness to someone headed for the Emerald City, I want to consider whether waiting for some later crisis is the best strategy. Even more, I will argue that the increasing statism of our country is coupled with a religious fervor that does not call for patient endurance, but bold witness to the truth.
This Really Is a Religious Liberty Issue
As I have written recently, the presidential mandate for Covid vaccines is one motivated by religious interests. With a religious belief in science, those in power are using the force of the state, the threat of job loss, and the fear of disenfranchisement to coerce public and private employer and employees to get the vaccine. Instead of convincing the public of the vaccines beneficial effects, the state is taking a page from Nike’s playbook coercing people to “just do it.” And sadly, Christians thought leaders are playing right along.
Last week, John Piper made the argument that Christian freedom should lead those who are fearful of getting the vaccine to get the vaccine. But ironically, that fear focused not on the anxiety caused by the adverse effects of the vaccine, or the medical concerns, or the uncertain side effects or long terms effects. The fear focused on those who feel pressured to not get the vaccine. But what group of people is putting fear into the heart of Christians not to get the vaccine? I am sure there could be some, but those individuals do not have the force of the federal government behind them.
In this case, I think Piper is misreading the field. The pressure mounting upon Christians is going in the other directions. And Piper’s article is only, if unintentionally, contributing to that pressure. Still, his article is benign compared to that of John Melcon who calls to question the arguments some are putting forward in an attempt to seek a religious exemption.  Indeed, Melcon’s article is one of many Christian hit pieces putting pressure (read: binding consciences ) on those who conscience is bound to not get the vaccine. With sophisticated legal speech, Melcon gives cover for employers and the powers that tax them, as it persuades Christians that it is fool’s errand to seek a religious exemption. But is it? Is it really out of bounds to seek a religious exemption for the Covid mandate? And should we strategize to hold off on seeking a religious exemption now, in order to seek it later?
I wouldn’t be writing this article, unless I disagreed. And I am not the only one. In a short string of tweets, lawyer, professor, and ERLC legal fellow Sam Webb had a few things to say in response to Melcon’s article. Stripping out the Twitter formatting, here’s what he said in response:
Article XVI of the New Hampshire Confession—a Baptist confession used 150+ years—states: “We believe that civil government is of divine appointment, for the interests and good order of human society, and that magistrates are to be prayed for, conscientiously honored, and obeyed, except only in things opposed to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only Lord of the conscience, and the Prince of the kings of the earth.”
If a Christian who holds no settled convictions against this Confession … cannot in good conscience—or, put differently, in good faith—submit to a government-mandated, employer-enforced vaccination because that Christian believes such mandate, action, or vaccination is “opposed to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ”for any number of reasons, then such objection is, in fact, a sincerely held religious belief and an exemption is warranted.
To cause such Christian to act contrary to conscience—even if ill-formed conscience!—is to claim lordship over the conscience which is further violation of that Christian’s sincerely held religious belief that “Jesus Christ…is the only Lord of the conscience.” Even more, what cannot be done in good faith is sin (Rom. 14:23) and so to force vaccination against conscience is to cause sin.
Let’s end the crusade of binding the consciences of brothers and sisters in Christ on disputable matters and let’s love our neighbor by advocating for the freedom of conscience—even if we disagree with the exercise of such conscience.
This is the exactly right! As I have counseled and signed off on multiple religious exemptions, I have not necessarily agreed with every one of the arguments being made, but I have, after listening to the formulation of the believer’s argument, perceived what their sincerely held, biblically-informed belief is. And because of that recognition of sincerely held beliefs, I have supported those Christians who have put their livelihoods in jeopardy in order to follow their Lord. I have urged them to count the cost, but I have not tried to shame them or bind their conscience. This, after all, is what Romans 14:4 calls us to do, and this is what John Melcon has failed to do.
Let’s end the crusade of binding the consciences of brothers and sisters in Christ on disputable matters and let’s love our neighbor by advocating for the freedom of conscience—even if we disagree with the exercise of such conscience.
With no appreciation for how Romans 14 works or any concern that he might be binding his brother’s conscience, Melcon’s argument results in a pressuring Christians to drop their sincerely held beliefs, because after all, it hurts the rest of us. Unfortunately, this is the same logic that governments are rolling out in this country and across the world (think Australia): “You need to think of the collective good and stop resisting on personal grounds. After all, there is no religious reason not to get the vaccine. It’s just medicine.”
For those who are most sensitive to the issues of religious liberty, however, all coercive arguments will fail. And should fail. As Lutheran writer Matthew Cochrane has observed, “Our government has forgone convincing us and has instead resorted to bullying, censorship, abuse, and coercion. But threats and propaganda do not absolve us of the God-given responsibility to make our best judgment based on the information available to us—even the information government bureaucrats, Big Tech, and corporate interests hide because it casts reasonable doubt on the vaccines.” And unfortunately, many Christian leaders are not far behind them in their tactics or persuasion. And this, I believe, is because they don’t see the bigger picture.
The Bigger Picture: Our Secular State Is Not Irreligious  
What’s the bigger picture? Namely, the way that the vaccine mandate—not the vaccine qua vaccine, i.e., the vaccine as a medical prophylactic—is a religious sacrament and a by-product of America’s growing statism.
For the last decade, Charles Taylor’s magnum opus, A Secular Age, has been a constant reference for understanding the “immanent frame” of our world. The Gospel Coalition even published a book in Taylor’s honor, and for good reason. Taylor, in his terminology, has explained how the secular world has lost its sense of divine transcendence and God’s place in our world. Accordingly, the modern secularism has made it is easier to disbelieve than to believe. Whereas Christendom explained the world in spiritual terms and religious practices, the five hundred year project which resulted in today’s secularism has left a vacuum where God once stood.
Christians know that God is not absent. As Francis Schaeffer put it, he is there and he is not silent, but in today’s naked public square, arguments for God are not permitted and this partially explains why religious exemptions are not appreciated. It was a different day when the language of the first amendment was penned. At that point, religion still possessed honor as a civic good. Today, however, religion, and especially Christianity, is seen as a nuisance and a source of bad behavior. This is why the Equality Act and SOGI policies are on a collision course with Christianity. Sexual liberty has become the new religion and that means that religious protections are now being transferred from people of faith to their secular offspring.
If we are to enjoy any religious liberty going forward, we cannot take a strategy that waits for worse cases to arise.
This is also why Melcon makes the case the way he does. He thinks that by playing our religious exemption card later in the game we will be better off. But what he doesn’t consider—in addition to binding consciences—is the fact that the government is not a religiously neutral or interested in well-timed religious liberty. Rather, it is actively carrying out a religious crusade, albeit one that speaks with scientific and not sacred speech. This is the point that needs to accompany Taylor’s observations. Our world has not only adopted a secular worldview, but in the absence of Christianity, and its secular offspring (i.e., civil religion), secular individuals have deified the state to celebrate and support their hedonistic desires. As Zygmunt Bauman has noted in his book Liquid Life, modernity is not only “presented as a time of secularization (‘everything sacred was profaned,’ as young Marx and Engels memorably put it) and disenchantment.” It is also a time where the enlarging state has adopted and enforced religious values. He continues,
What is less often mentioned, however, though it should be, is that modernity also deified and enchanted the “nation,” the new authority—and so by proxy the man-made institutions that claimed to speak and act in its name. “The sacred” was not so much disavowed as made the target of an “unfriendly takeover”: moved under different management and put in the service of the emergent nation-state. (Bauman, Liquid Life, 44; cited in Peter Leithart, 1 and 2 Kings, 64)
This is what most of our Christian leaders have not sufficiently appreciated. With the election of Joseph Biden, we have seen an unending array of executive orders and economic decisions that have further tied the citizens to the state (think: government bailouts) and forced the state on the citizens (think: all the policies of the CDC). Topping the list of government intrusions is the vaccine mandate. And because this mandate have come with all the trappings of a religion, we now have a state that is forcing its religion on its citizens.
No Religious Liberty Without Liberty of Conscience
If you don’t see how the secular state is instantiating its religious point of view, I encourage to open your eyes. Again, I have outlined this point in a previous article. For now, let me simply connect the dots from religious liberty to liberty of conscience.
Returning to the wreckage on Sharp Top Mountain, we should consider that it would be impossible to know what it was or why it was there without a memorial explaining the crash. Such is the case with religious liberty as well. Many can see the fuselage, the wings, and the engines of religious liberty scattered throughout our country. But very few can put all the pieces together and understand how it works and how it got here.
How many who have read the Bill of Rights, if they have read the Bill of Rights, know what it took for James Madison and the Founding Fathers to make a place for religious liberty? How many critique a religious exemption understand the connection to Romans 14? Evidence for our inability to understand Romans 14 has been seen for the last year. Too many evangelicals have interpreted Romans 13 as a divine imperative to do whatever the government tells you, without considering first who gives the government their authority. Then, interpretations of Romans 14 continue in confusion, because Christians are not trying to protect their brothers freedom. In Melcon’s case, he is (unintentionally) siding with the state to bind other’s freedom. And why? Because now is not the time to raise religious concerns.
All in all, we have lived off the rations of religious liberty for nearly two and half centuries, and it is time to relearn how all the pieces got there and how to reassemble them so that that religious liberty might fly again. Unfortunately, arguments like the one offered by John Melcon and John Piper and countless other Johns demonstrate that even the most lucid among us still don’t quite know how this thing flies.
If we are to enjoy any religious liberty going forward, we cannot take a strategy that waits for worse cases to arise. Rather, we need to reintroduce, rewaken, and reinforce the arguments for religious liberty. This must be done in the public square and in countless conversations with Christians and their neighbors. In fact, this is one of the growing benefits of the religious exemptions. In our local church alone, I can report countless opportunities Christians have taken to share the gospel and their religious convictions about the vaccine.
And you know what? It has had effect, not just on other Christians, but on atheists, and agnostics who have seen the merit of personal liberty of conscience and the demerit of forcing people to get a vaccine against their will. This is what it will take for religious liberty to gain a hearing in public, as well as Christians being willing to suffer for their beliefs. This is what turned James Madison’s heart, when he saw the six Baptist pastors jailed for their faith. And this is likely what will turn other hearts today, witnessing people willing to suffer for the sake of conscience.
Yet, such conversations and suffering will not come if we continue to bind the consciences of other Christians. And this is the other place we need to talk about religious liberty: in the church.
In the church, we need to encourage Christians to form their consciences around God’s Word. But we must also permit Christians to form their consciences differently. When we fail to do that, however, we fail to follow Romans 14, and we further fracture the witness of the church, not to mention hurting individual members who are trying their best to follow God with all their heart.
We must make biblical arguments on the subject, learning afresh how Christians have resisted tyranny, so that we can recognize and resist tyranny in the present.
In such cases, the path of another might not be your path, but it is the path that some servants of the Lord have taken and will take. And in that time, we should as Sam Webb put it, “end the crusade of binding the consciences of brothers and sisters in Christ on disputable matters and let’s love our neighbor by advocating for the freedom of conscience—even if we disagree with the exercise of such conscience.”
This is what Melcon’s argument does not do. It may understand the legal ramifications of religious exemptions and it purports to know what will happen if people seek them. But it does not demonstrate an appreciation for liberty of conscience itself. And the point I am making is that if we are going to see religious liberty in public, it will require the church in America to grow up in its understanding of liberty of conscience among its own members. This means pastors teaching on the subject, Christians standing firm for the truth, and other Christians—whether they share the same conviction about Covid vaccines or not—supporting others who are willing to suffer for their beliefs. Indeed, there have been many Christians in church history who have held different beliefs on different Christians practices. But one thing that has benefitted the Church in America has been the freedom to exercise their religion without the coercion of the state.
Today, with the state taking on its own religious practices, we are not in a place where we can wait for a better time to exercise what remains of our religious liberty. No, teaching the church and our neighbors how to recognize the scraps of religious liberty is where we must begin. We must make biblical arguments on the subject, learning afresh how Christians have resisted tyranny, so that we can recognize and resist tyranny in the present. Indeed, now is the time for us to connect religious liberty with liberty of conscience, and to stop making arguments that aid the state by leading Christians to sin as they ignore their consciences.
If we fail to do that now, we will have little hope of standing later. And for that reason, for those who are standing up and submitting religious exemptions, we need to pray for them and promise them that we will hold them up as they follow their Lord and our Lord—whether or not they are doing it in the same ways that we would. Such is the way of liberty of conscience and the way Christians need to truly affirm the faith of their brothers and sisters.
Soli Deo Gloria.

Tweet Share

A Christian world view is bubbling over with resources to satisfy the aesthetic and dramatic needs of every human person.  It is more capable of doing this than any other view of the world. I am not asserting that only Christians can write good literature, tell a good story, make beautiful art, or write beautiful music. Such certainly is not the case. I am saying that the Christian view of the world—“The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof”– provides such a comprehensive and inescapable view of reality that any literature or other art form that reflects that view of reality has the intrinsic possibility of satisfying the emotional and aesthetic requirements of the human spirit. I lay no claim to possessing absolute insight into this area.  Rather, I am an amateur and run the risk of manifesting more aggressiveness than good sense in this assertion. Nevertheless, one need not be a great novelist or musician to discern that artistic expression is a vital area of human need. In addition, a bit of serious thought may really impress the thinker that the Christian faith embraces a multitude of possibilities for serious artistic inspiration.
Out of a staggering number of possibilities for productive interaction, elementary literary theory will provide the framework for our testing of the aesthetic power of the Christian faith. My intent is to illustrate that literary theory finds within the Christian faith a solid foundation for its assertions. One could also contend, though I will not seek to demonstrate this, that the Christian Faith provides the richest, most comprehensive background as well as the most fertile soil for the actual content of literature and other artistic expressions among the world views open to us.
This glance at literary theory obviously is not exhaustive, but only suggestive and tentative. One of the most fundamental concepts in literary theory is the idea of plot. Harry Shaw, in his Dictionary of Literary Terms has defined plot as “A plan or scheme to accomplish a purpose.” He says, “In literature, plot refers to the arrangement of events to achieve an intended effect.” He then describes a plot as “a series of carefully devised and interrelated actions that progresses through a struggle of opposing forces” (that is conflict) and conclude with a climax and a denouement. Shaw also points out the difference between plot and story. He employs the distinction of E. M. Forster. A story is a narrative of events arranged in their time sequence while a plot is a narrative of events in which the emphasis falls on causality. Forster illustrates: “The king died and then the queen died” is a story. “The king died, and then the queen died of grief” is a plot.
This definition of plot with its differentiation between story and plot focuses our attention upon causality.  The idea of cause and effect is a fundamental characteristic of plot.  In plot we do not see one event haphazardly following upon another event without any ultimate connection between the two things.  If that phenomenon persists in a book, we soon lay it aside or place it on the coffee table which contains books that no one reads anyway.  A plot must build and increase in intensity and complexity by introducing different sets of causes which have logical, though sometimes strange, effects.  This same literary critic, Harry Shaw describes cause and effect in this way:
Much of what one reads is the result of cause-and -effect relations.  When we read an answer to the question “Why did this happen?”  We are dealing in causes.  When we read the question “What will this do?”  The answers involved deal with effects.  A cause, therefore, is that which produces an effect, the person, idea, or force from which something results.
After giving examples of topic sentences in paragraphs which lead to cause and effect discussions within the paragraph Shaw concludes:
All life — and consequently all good literature — is concerned with why something begins to exist and why it exists the way it does.  A cause is the reason.  An effect is the result of the operation of a cause.  Cause and effect are necessarily related: Shakespeare’s Macbeth killed Duncan because of ambition and greed; the effect of the murder is the substance of a tragedy that leads to Macbeth’s total ruin.  Such a statement about Macbeth indicates that the total cause of any event is complex and involves an intricate joining of preceding forces and events; the total effects of any given cause extend beyond immediate results.
Therefore, in a good story an author will develop his plot by introducing a multiplicity of factors which we could define as causes, he will make clear to us the resultant effects of these causes, and will bring them all together finally in a coherent conclusion, every cause and every effect having its proper and well-defined relationship to the final solution of the story.  The author who cannot accomplish this in a credible fashion has failed to produce a good work of literature.
I would propose that the reason our minds demand that sort of organization to a plot is that God has created the world to work that way, and his making humans in his image has established n the mind the necessity for all things finally to resolve into a worthy purpose. The Bible begins with the cause of all the stories when it asserts “In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth.”  When Scripture affirms in Ephesians 1:11 that God works all things after the counsel of his own will, and in Romans 8:28, “We know that all things work together for the good to them that love God and are the called according to his purpose,” then we indeed do know that all things have their designated place.
Such confidence results from the Christian doctrine of Providence.  In itself it is an assertion that eventually all causes and all effects will resolve themselves into the purpose of God, the author of this story. No loose ends will remain dangling, no factors will have been brought in that do not play their own part in the development of the plot.
I am not saying that God has accommodated himself to our view of what plot should be; I am saying that we have inescapably produced an understanding of plot based upon the way the world is and our minds are only satisfied when the story is told as it really should be, that is, in accord with the way God made the world.
According to Shaw, a plot includes a “a series of carefully devised and interrelated actions.”  An author must be careful to devise his actions carefully and interrelate them properly because he must bring them to a proper resolution.  The Bible represents all the events of the world as reflecting the relationship and interaction of man the creature with God the Creator.  Everything contributes to our understanding of the complexity of man’s involvement with sin and the ingenuity of his depravity but ultimately relates to the simple concept that man is in rebellion against the God who owns him. As this theme develops in complexity and force, a counter but complementary theme of redemption is introduced. It finds simultaneous development along with man’s depravity. It becomes so intricate that we see God’s redemptive purpose developing in the midst of man’s deceptive wickedness and even using it to bring the redemptive theme to a successful consummation. The story of Joseph’s being sold into Egyptian bondage by the evil intent of his brothers compels a complex interaction of emotion, outrage, understanding, and sympathy at the human level. Parallel to that, moreover, is the recognition that this very action on the part of his brothers was the plan of God for saving his chosen family from starvation. Through that preservation, the messianic nation is formed. We also see the interrelationship of these apparently disparate parts in Peter’s affirmation at Pentecost “This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men” (Acts 2:23).  How much greater illustration do we need of the eventual resolution of two seemingly irreconcilable themes.
Scripture consistently presents the world story as developing a “series of carefully devised and interrelated actions.”  Reality works that way, because God, though infinite and ultimately incomprehensible in his intelligence and wisdom, is consistent and purposive. The human mind cannot rest satisfied with a fallacious picture of reality; we therefore require carefully devised and interrelated actions in any story, or plot, but especially in the story.
The second element of this definition of plot insists that this series “progresses through a struggle of opposing forces.” A plot cannot progress without conflict of some kind.  It may be severe internal strife on the part of a tragic hero. It may be the good guys vs. the bad guys, or the clever and sinister insinuation of a fiend trying to spoil the goodness and innocence of a heroine, or the opposing force may simply be the ridiculous and incongruous developments of a situation comedy. No matter what the story, some degree of conflict is necessary for resolution. That description exists because it is impossible for us to conceive of a tale of interest or of real accomplishment without conflict of some sort being involved.
For example, the following story would hold very little interest for the listeners (though indeed it may be extremely significant for the teller). “Yesterday I went to the post office and mailed my letters and went back home and drank a cup of coffee.  I also read the paper and really had a nice day.” Now it is wonderful to have a day like that, but not too wonderful to tell about it. Consider this option: “While on the way to the post office yesterday I had a flat tire.  When I stepped out of the car, I was abducted by two escapees from the State mental asylum who thought that I was an airplane. They were convinced that they could make a quick trip to beautiful downtown Shawnee, Oklahoma, if they could only find the proper runway from which to take off. I could not convince them that I wasn’t an airplane and so only escaped the trip to Shawnee by convincing them that I had already been flying all day and my arms were too tired for another trip. Eventually they were taken into custody by a couple of officers from the asylum who refused to believe that I too was not a resident of the asylum since I had spoken so convincingly about having flown all day. When they discovered their mistake, they were so chagrined that they fixed my flat tire and treated me to a cup of coffee. By this time the post office was closed and I had to wait until the next day to mail my letters. This upset my wife who was sending a special birthday card to her sister. That evening she had to call and explain why the card would not be on time. In the conversation, she was reminded that the birthday was not till next week, and was relieved that she had not been so early with the card as to muffle its joyful impact. She forgave me and was happy I had had such an unusual day.”
This is hardly an engaging literary style but the story is worth telling and the element of conflict provides a greater degree of interest than the lack thereof.  One who has read Tolkiens’ Lord of the Rings, or Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia or his Space trilogy or, Cormack McCarthy’s Blood Meridian can readily see how numerous are the possibilities for developing conflict as a necessary, literary device.  The element of conflict is a continuing reality in the Scripture from the subtle but vicious temptation of Eve by the Serpent until the twentieth chapter of Revelation when “the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever” (Revelation 20:10).  The walk of the Christian is represented as a walk of conflict in which he wears the whole armor of God, for his warfare is against principalities and powers in heavenly places.
So, on the one hand, the biblical record grandly illustrates this literary principle; but even more important, it is the truth at the back of this biblical conflict that has given rise to our understanding that a plot progresses through a struggle of opposing forces.  We feel it in our bones and see it all around us, because that is the way things are.
The next element of plot is climax.  The climax is that point in the play, in which it becomes clear that the central motive will or will not be successful. It becomes clear which force is going to emerge victorious in the conflict.  One characteristic of many modern plays and movies is the significant absence of climax and denouement. This may not be a weakness in itself but is merely a confession on the playwright’s part that he does not know which side of the conflict should win and much less how the victory would finally be resolved into a satisfying conclusion. We see such a phenomenon in the movie of some years back called Kramer vs. Kramer. It ends the only way it could end; but the audience has some degree of frustration because both parents had compelling characteristics that won their sympathy and both had significant weaknesses. However, the very fact of frustration with that sort of ending is evidence that one’s mind does not stop there but recognizes the need for absolute judgment somewhere that will make clear what really should have happened.
The same thing would be true of the trial of Jesus if it were left at the stage of his condemnation. “When He was reviled, he reviled not in return. When he suffered, he did not threaten, but he trusted to him who judges justly.” That is true not only in the case of the trial of Jesus, but it is an aesthetic requirement of our minds. When climax fails to materialize in the story, our minds even unwittingly commit that judgment to the one who judges justly.
This tendency, in fact makes us restless until we can find answers to the unresolved questions that plague us. The question that we all have asked, “Did Scarlet get Rhett back or did she really not deserve to have him” gave rise to an attempt to resolve that aggravating uncertainty.
There are hundreds of examples, however, in which the climax is set forth very forcefully in the story, and the author who is successful in it and makes all the readers or onlookers feel that it justified, has the matchless gift of creation. Climax in the biblical account and in the real story of the world comes in the cross. When Jesus cried in a loud voice, “It is finished” the climax to all of history had come. In the cross the conflict between Jew and Gentile was over, God and man were reconciled, death was turned backwards, and all the demonic powers arrayed against God were put to flight. This is the victory that must occur or the world is senseless; this is the victory that must occur or every high hope and aspiration of our most noble moments is crushed to the ground and all is vanity. That unspeakable conflict entailed in the highest of all God’s creatures rebelling against the holy, righteous, and just creator and involving another of God’s high creations, man, in the rebellion came to its climax in the cross. That part of literary theory which demands climax within the plot finds its most irrefutable rationale in God’s action in the cross.
The final element of the plot is denouement. This word refers to the solution or the final untangling of the intricacies of a plot. What are the implications of a victory that is won.  The made-for-TV lawyer Perry Mason did this by explaining how he discerned who was the real culprit and tying all the bits of evidence together for the astounded viewer.  In Tolkien it is done by describing the righteous rule of the rightful king of middle earth, the cleansing of the shire, and the fading away of yesterday’s heroes with the sense that their purpose had been well fulfilled. Lewis sees all history culminating in the land of Narnia, and a train wreck, perhaps interpreted as tragic by those in England was not tragic at all but merely the door to Narnia, and more than Narnia, Aslan’s own country.  Denouement comes in the Bible story as Christ is resurrected to defeat death and its causes and returns in glory and splendor, and he will display such matchless beauty and such awesome power that every knee shall bow of things in heaven and things in earth and things under the earth, and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the Glory of God the Father. Again, the final issue of this is described for us in the book of the Revelation.

Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life bearing twelve crops of fruits, yielding its fruit each month.  And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.  No longer will there be any curse.  The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him.  They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. There will be no more night.  They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light.  And they will reign for ever and ever.  – Rev. 20:1-5

This conclusion gives literary satisfaction and objective justification to the thesis of our text: “The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein.” Holiness and righteousness will inhabit the final resolution which will be brought about because “the Lord of hosts, … the King of glory” has come in. This is the model for and the foundation of all denoument. Nothing but such an infinitely excellent conclusion to all things can satisfy the mind. It is that story-ending than which a greater can not be thought. It is the truth.

Tweet Share

The doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone is so precious to us. As a quick reminder, justification is:

Forensic – that is, it is a legal declaration. Because Christ has fulfilled all righteous, and died the just death that sinners deserve bearing God’s wrath, and rising again in victory, those who trust Christ by faith are declared legally righteous. They are imputed with the righteousness of Christ.

Full – there is nothing that you can add to your justification. All Christians, all those who look to Christ in faith, are equally justified. It is complete. There are no degrees of justification.

Final – We are not awaiting a future justification. Christ’s work has been applied to us who are trusting Him. Our good works do not add to this and cannot add to this and are unnecessary to this in terms of receiving justification.

Justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone is why the gospel is good news. It is at the very heart of what Christ has done for His people.

Furthermore, the 1689 2nd London Baptist Confession of faith rightly states: “…[T]he justification of believers under the Old Testament was exactly the same as the justification of believers under the New Testament.”

No one. Not one single soul has ever been saved apart from faith in Christ. Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness. Old Testament believers were saved by looking forward to the coming Messiah, by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

This is what God does for His people by His grace.

Now, what we are doing in this post is considering, practically, how do we use this doctrine in battle?

I remind you of one of Satan’s attacks on the church: He is the accuser. He accuses the brethren. Part of the reason this continues to work on Christians is because Satan is right.

At least partly.

His accusations can carry weight because he reminds us of the guilt we’ve really experienced and do experience. The problem is, he does not tell the whole story. He doesn’t get to the last chapter. Christ has made sufficient atonement for our sins and clothed us in His own righteous robes.

So, I want us to consider practically how we this glorious doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone in battle.  

1. When You Are Tempted, Remember Who You Are.

Yes, I know. All my fellow millennials can hear James Earl Jones playing the role of Mufasa right now telling Simba, “Remember who you are!”

The reality of our justification does not lead us to desire sin. Whenever we sin, we are forgetting who we are in Christ.

But this really does have a practical application to every believer. Remember who you are! In one sense, that’s the theme of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. He begins that letter with one long run on sentence reminding them of who they are in Christ (cf. Eph. 1:3-14).  

Satan tempts the church to sin. To grumble. To divide. To complain. To sin egregiously.

But, if we are resolute in our doctrine of justification, then we are remembering we are new. We are forgiven. We are justified. We are adopted. We are in union with Christ.

Did Christ sin? No. Then why would we who are in Him be interested in that? How can we who died to sin still live in it?

The fundamental reality of who a Christian is can be put in very simple terms: Dear brother or sister, you are not who you once were! The reality of our justification does not lead us to desire sin. Whenever we sin, we are forgetting who we are in Christ.

When you are tempted, remember who you are. The doctrine of justification does not produce licentiousness or antinomianism. Not if we are remembering who we are.

2. When You Are Accused, Remember Whose You Are

Christians are the Lord’s and we stand in His strength (cf. Eph. 6:10ff). We are clothed in His armor. God owns us. And God will protect His church. Let the accusations come! Our Defender is stronger than our Adversary.

Though Satan does sometimes tell half-truths, he also sometimes tells outright lies. Accusing the church of things we are not guilty of. In those situations, remember you are God’s. God has adopted you in Christ.

Christ owns you. The One who has justified you is the one who defends you.

When you are tempted, remember who you are. When you are accused, remember whose you are.

3. When You Are Guilty, Remember Christ

There are times Satan will bring up your guilt and he’s right. You sinned. You sinned against a brother. You sinned against your children.

Your words or thoughts or actions or motivations or desires, they came short of the glory of God. You sinned. And now Satan attacks.

You can make excuses. I did this because this happened. Or like Adam and Eve we can blame others. Or we can even blame God. But to do any of that is to fall for Satan’s trap. It causes division or laziness or pride or continued sin. Don’t do that.

Rather, when we are guilty of sin, we must not make excuses. The doctrine of justification reminds us to look to Christ. We must remember, our justification never changes. Ever. We never become less justified because of sin. We are secure in Him.

There is, therefore, now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. Look again to Christ!

This frees us. It frees us to repent. Christ has already paid for my sins. I can go to Him again in faith.

And while there are consequences for my sins, and there are times we do need to make restitution to others because of sin, there is never penance to God required for them. I don’t have to work for God to forgive me because I can’t. My forgiveness is wrapped up in what Christ has done.

The best thing a Christian can do when he or she is guilty of sinning, is to run again to our King. Run to Him in faith. Repent and rest again in all that God is for you in Christ.

Jesus paid it all.

When we sin, we are essentially telling Jesus to turn back and depart from us like Naomi said to her daughters-in-law. But Christ is like Ruth ever clinging to us and committing Himself to be with us even to our death.  He is not letting go of His Bride.

The best thing a Christian can do when he or she is guilty of sinning, is to run again to our King.

Christians were once alienated from God, but that is no longer the case.  The wrath of God for our sin is all gone. It has been propitiated by Christ.

Christ drank the foaming cup of the wrath of God down to the last dreg and there’s nothing left in that cup for you to drink, so keep drinking from the rivers of grace.

When you are guilty of sin, repent. Look to our Lord Jesus. Rest yourself in His completed work.

When you are tempted, remember who you are. When you are accused, remember whose you are. When you are guilty, remember Christ.

4. When You Are Self-righteous, Remember the Law

If Satan cannot get you to fall in an egregious manner, he can work to harden your heart in self-righteousness.

Look at all I am doing! Look how committed I am to the church! Look how committed I am to a biblical home! Look how much I read my bible! Look how much I am obeying!

Isn’t Satan so crafty? We know better than to allow those thoughts to be spoken out loud. But if you’re honest with your heart, those thoughts have crept in before.

When you think about your justification, consider what Christ did to obtain it: Perfect. Personal. Precise. Perpetual obedience to God’s holy and righteous law.

Let that humble you. You are just as far away from keeping God’s law for your justification as the most wicked reprobate, depraved, sinner you can imagine in your mind.

Listen to me carefully here: This is not me saying “Well, sin is sin, so it doesn’t matter.” And this is not me saying that the believer does not pursue real obedience to God. Absolutely we do, by God’s grace working in our hearts.

Christians were recreated in Christ for good works (cf. Eph. 2:10). Christians do good works. Those who don’t, are not believers.

But hear me now: There is nothing that you can parade before God that merits His acceptance of you. In and yourself you do not meet His holy standard.

Let the law humble you and drive you again to our good and gracious King! Put on His armor, not your own (cf. Eph. 6:10ff).

We stand, all of us, on equal ground before God as sinners. Oh but the grace we have in Christ! He is our hope. He is our boast. He is our all.

Not self. Christ.

The doctrine of justification, properly understood, does not produce legalism. Let us live holy in and by His grace alone.

When you are tempted, remember who you are. When you are accused, remember whose you are. When you are guilty, remember Christ. When you are self-righteous, remember the Law.

5. When You Are Afraid, Remember God’s Armor

We should not make light of spiritual warfare. Sometimes we can walk around with such confidence in Christ. But, sometimes, we can have very serious times of depression or fear or trepidation. Satan can paralyze the church, at times, with fear.

But I am calling us to remember what God has provided His church. Ephesians 6:10-18 lays out our spiritual armor that Paul calls us to put on. But what’s important to remember is that it is God’s armor given to us.

This is the armor Christ has worn Himself (cf. Isaiah 59:17) and won for His church and now gifted to His church.

When you are afraid, remember the armor. The doctrine of justification reminds us that ultimately, nothing, not the culture, not the government, not any false religion, no demonic power, absolutely nothing can separate us from Christ. Nothing can prevent the church’s final victory. Our armor is the armor of God!

When you are afraid, remember the armor.

When you are tempted, remember who you are. When you are accused, remember whose you are. When you are guilty, remember Christ. When you are self-righteous, remember the Law. When you are afraid, remember the armor.

6. When All Is Well, Remember Grace

I’ve painted a lot of negative realities of the Christian life here. Temptation. Accusation. Failure. Self-righteousness. Fear.

But, there are also times when we don’t feel the heat of the battle.

Now, we should never grow complacent. But when you wake up, and the kids are well, and the table is set, and the food is served, and Christ is enjoyed, and the saints are edified, remember grace.

The doctrine of justification reminds us that God is for us in Christ, and this is based on His eternal love and sovereign grace. Grace has brought you safe thus far and grace will lead you home.

The doctrine of justification reminds us that God is for us in Christ, and this is based on His eternal love and sovereign grace.

Think about it! You stand in this impenetrable breastplate. The fury of Satan is kept at bay from you. Your heart is content in Christ. You are at peace with the church. You are hungering and thirsting for righteousness.

Where is this coming from? My friend, the fountain of grace. Drink deeply. And do not forget the source of these blessings. And do not forget the cost of these blessings.

They flow to you from the wounds of our King. The One who came to us, and lived for us, and died for us, and rose again, and now reigns on high for His glory and for the good of His church.

When all is well, remember grace.

When you are tempted, remember who you are. When you are accused, remember whose you are. When you are guilty, remember Christ. When you are self-righteous, remember the Law. When you are afraid, remember the armor. When all is well, remember grace.

7. When Death Arrives, Remember Gain

The inevitable is just outside the door. It is a phone call away. It is a doctor’s report away. It is a tragedy away. It is a heartbeat away. Death is coming. You’ll cross that river more quickly than you realized you would.

This is a terrifying reality to those who are rejecting Christ. Those living in their shelter of hypocrisy. Those dressed in carelessness or complacency. Those clothed in Satan’s armor and in love with sin.

Friend, if this is you, your condition is dreadful. And death should be frightening to you. It will creep up on you before you are ready and in the blink of an eye you will pass from this life to the next. From a life of carefree rebellion against God into one that enters His righteous judgment for all eternity.

Your only hope is to run to Christ. The One who has secured perfection and suffered our penalty. The one who died and is alive forevermore.  The One who is offered to poor and needy sinners. The one who will save the vilest of sinners who come to Him in faith.

You must repent and believe the gospel or death will only be the beginning of an eternal hell you can never escape.

But what about those in Christ? What about those dressed in His righteousness?

The Scriptures are replete with good promises: For me to live is Christ and to die is gain (Phil. 1:21). Precious in the sight of Yahweh is the death of His saints (Ps. 116:15). To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord (cf. 2 Cor. 5:8).

How does the doctrine of justification practically equip us for daily living and spiritual warfare? Because it takes the greatest worry of mankind and turns it into a blessing.

Death is not the end. Death is the beginning. Death is gain for those who are in Christ. Christ entered heaven in victory and those who are trusting Him will follow Him there for they wear His own righteousness.

So, I look up and I see the hill. The battle there is fierce. But the King says. Go! Take the hill! For my glory!

But I might die. To win this ground for my dear Lord, what if it costs me my very life? I see saints of old who have perished striving to take this hill.

I am afraid.

What about my family? What about my children?

But then I think again of this doctrine. Christ has already won my greatest battle. He has reconciled me to God and turned my righteous enemy in to my friend. He has forgiven me. He has put my account upon His own and His account upon mine.

Death only means an entrance into the presence of Christ. It only holds out the promise of a resurrected and glorified body. Death, for those in Christ, is gain.

I am reminded: He is worthy. He is in me. He is with me. And the very worst thing that can happen to me, He has already made provision for: He has already conquered death for His Saints.

My Savior passed through death Himself. He tasted death under God’s divine judgment. His righteous life could not be contained by death. He rose again from the death triumphing over the grave. 

And this very righteousness He has bestowed upon me by grace through faith. That means the death that couldn’t hold Him, can’t hold me either. All death does is deliver me from this weak mind and decaying body, and the sin that seeks to cling so close to me.

Death only means an entrance into the presence of Christ. It only holds out the promise of a resurrected and glorified body. Death, for those in Christ, is gain.

So, I will charge the hill.

Will you go with me?

Christ is worthy.

Christ is worthy of a church that remembers who we are. Christ is worthy of a church that remembers whose we are. Christ is worthy of a church that remembers Him. Christ is worthy of a church that remembers the high cost of our salvation. Christ is worthy of a church that remembers His armor. Christ is worthy of a church that remembers grace. And Christ is worthy of a church that remembers death is gain.

The doctrine of justification is not just for seminarians and scholars. It’s for the everyday believer. It equips us to go through life prepared for whatever providence may have for us, confident in all God is for us in Christ. It protects us in our most vulnerable moments of spiritual warfare and keeps the church moving towards God’s great goal of declaring Christ’s glory over every nation.

Theology matters. Press on brothers and sisters!