Listen closely and you can still hear the old serpent’s hiss behind the popular slogans of our day: “Believe in yourselvesss. Follow your heartsss. The answersss are within.” The slogans, like the serpent’s original rhetoric, sound innocuous and even morally good—but their “feel good” vibes just mask their insidious aims to convince you of the oldest lie in the book: that you have the sovereign power to determine meaning and define reality however you like.
Thanks to Carl Trueman’s bestsellers The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self and Strange New World, Christians are in a far better place to understand this bizarre cultural moment. How did we get to a place where humans with XY chromosomes—otherwise known as males—have risen to dominance in female sports, won acclaim as one of USA Today’s Women of the Year, and been hosted by the Smithsonian to perform interactive drag shows for young children?
Trueman does a stellar job retracing the steps from Rousseau, Nietzsche, Marx, and other thought leaders, through the sexual revolution, and up to our day. His analysis is spot on, so far as it goes. But what if there’s a far more ancient origin to the expressive individualism trending in our day? (Full disclosure: I had an on-air discussion with Trueman suggesting this very thesis, and he heartily agreed.)
Maker’s Knowledge
In Genesis 3 we behold the “Tree of Knowledge.” The serpent tempts humanity’s first couple with a pitch to be “like God, knowing good and evil” (Gen. 3:5). We typically use the English word “know” in ways that blur the meaning of Genesis. Allow me to offer a real-life scenario in which our English word “know” comes closer to the ancient Hebrew of Genesis 3.
After college, I lived in a bachelor pad with friends. One of those friends, Dave, was a founding member of a band called Linkin Park. Their debut album, Hybrid Theory, had recently gone multiplatinum. Dave was hard at work with his bandmates crafting their sophomore release, Meteora, which went on to be certified platinum seven times over. He returned from the studio daily and we would listen through the rough concept tracks of what became over 50 songs, only 12 of which survived the final cut.
I had questions. What effect are you using there? What inspired that track? How did you make that part sound so face-meltingly huge? I never once stumped him. Dave knew the songs. He didn’t know them because he’d blasted them on the radio over and over or studied the sheet music bar by bar. He knew them because he made them. Dave knew why the song was that way because he personally chose to make it that way. He had a maker’s knowledge. He had what ancient Jews would have called bachar, the very thing offered by the serpent in Genesis 3.
Read More

That they who desire our denomination to be diverse in its practices – that is, to be a so-called ‘big tent’ and nationwide church – ought to take heed, for this exulting in practical diversity lends itself quite easily to a spirit which regards a broad church as being more important than a doctrinally sound one. History everywhere attests that such a latitudinarian disposition ill serves denominations of all stripes, and that union among those with different doctrines or practices – as between the Old and New Schools, or of the northern church after its union with the Cumberland Presbyterians in the early 1900s – stirs up all manner of difficulty and frequently leads to doctrinal decline.

[Read Part Part One, Part Two, and Part Three]

That a group of elders meeting in organized fashion to discuss or decide upon the affairs of the church or of some part thereof may be rightly termed a presbytery.
That the National Partnership, as it meets the criteria above, may be fairly termed a presbytery.
That presbyteries should be formally organized and should operate according to normal prescribed processes, as provided for by the constitution of the church.
That the normal affairs of presbyteries should be reasonably public and open, and that secrecy should be used only in cases of true need, as for example to protect the privacy of individuals involved in ministry in hostile nations, or in the early stages of discipline.
That irregular presbyterial operations, such as the use of secrecy when it is not needed, are out of accord with the practice of good church government.
That internal factions undermine the good order, unity, and peace of the church and confound its operations by leading men to form strong opinions on various issues prior to and apart from discussions upon them at stated meetings conducted for that purpose. What is meant to be done by the church in her courts is instead done by sundry factions behind the scenes, the courts being then not occasions for deliberation but rather occasions to act out what has already been decided.
That secretive formal or de facto factions within the denomination among her ministers and members were not intended by the founders of the church, and are not provided for by its constitution.
That the constitution not providing for such factions ought to call into question their validity and propriety, and that some such groups, if not formally unlawful, are yet contrary to the spirit and right practice of presbyterian polity, and threaten to undermine or corrupt it.
That needless secrecy in political organization cannot be defended in the Christian church, unless it be to avoid grave persecution by hostile governments or by others who would afflict God’s people. The avoidance of slander or unpopular controversy alone is not reason enough to act clandestinely, for the sufferance of such things is a part of the Christian life, and because there are means available to redress such sin if one is assailed by it.
That the publication of anonymous manifestos or open letters is out of accord with the conspicuous and forthcoming honesty that ought to characterize ministers of the gospel and other leaders in the church.
That the use of unnecessary anonymity bespeaks a spirit of cowardice or mischief and ill intentions – for why should a man hide his identity from his brethren if his words be true?
That the use of anonymity breeds distrust and suspicion and destroys all credibility as regards a letter’s claims or as regards the personal character of its author if he is discovered.
That the use of anonymity insults the audience, for it intimates that they are so unfair in judgment that they cannot be trusted to know an author’s name. It further denies them the opportunity of a personal response; for to whom does one address a response to an anonymous letter?
That the use of anonymity and secrecy, as they have recently been used by some in the denomination, is indefensible and suggests a poor character for those involved, and a probable unfitness for office.
That any right to secrecy in political organization in the Presbyterian Church in America is forfeit owing to the fact that the denomination from which we separated, the former Presbyterian Church in the United States, is believed to have been hastened in its doctrinal decline by the politicking of the clandestine “Fellowship of Saint James.”
That those who hide their machinations can little object if others, feeling suspicious because of their secrecy, are moved by an understandable concern to disregard their imagined right to privacy in such matters and to avail themselves of their secrets when they are brought to the light.
That they who accuse others of bad faith and ‘toxicity’ for prying into their secrets ought to consider that they should have no such secrets into which to pry, and that it was their own bad faith in clandestinely organizing that provoked such behavior in others. He who acts dishonorably has but little ground for complaint if others do likewise.
That such secrecy may be interpreted as involving its participants in undermining the peace and purity of the church, and that the denomination would be within its rights and the dictates of prudence to legislate against it going forward, and to punish judicially those that are involved in it.
That the National Partnership meets the foregoing description and owes it to the church either to disband, or else to at least forgo its secrecy and to do as honor and honesty demand and come forth into the public eye as an open organization.
That those organizations and groups which have a formal, public character must take great heed lest they fall and become mere political factions whose efforts are wholly taken up with questions of intradenominational politics.
That this, which applies to such groups, applies also to the individuals associated therewith. Many a man has ruined his effectiveness as a minister by giving too much of his effort to polemics.
That the slowness by which the courts of the church operate is neither just nor wise, and is a disservice to all parties involved. He who would remove leaven from a lump must move quickly, else the possibility of doing so is lost. For the church to move as slowly as it has hithertofore done is to yield the momentum to wrongdoing, which has much occasion to multiply itself while awaiting the adjudication of cases involving it.
That the slowness and ineffectiveness of our courts demoralizes the pious, who see in the advance of wickedness and the weakness of all official responses to it the certain triumph of such wrongdoing.
That the apparent slowness wherewith God often moves in judging wickedness provides no warrant for the church to move with equal slowness. For God is longsuffering and patient, and he has his purposes which are often hidden from us or that are best accomplished by forbearing the prevalence of wickedness for a time. The judgments of God’s people are often quick (Ex. 32:25-28, Nov. 25:6-8, 2 Sam. 4:11), a principle that the Presbyterian Church in America ought to embody as well, lest she be found to be guilty of sloth and a lack of the commanded zeal for holiness.
That no one has any right to office, office existing rather for the benefit of those who are served than for that of those who would hold it (Mk. 10:42-45).
That many yet act as though there is a right to office, and that any qualifications respecting it are an infringement upon their rights, not least their rights of conscience.
That those who elevate their own rights above the rights of the church, whether as a whole or in its sundry presbyteries, proceed from a principle that is contrary to the heritage of the Reformed churches and which owes its character to other, more radical Protestant traditions, and to the values of contemporary American society at large.
That the standard of ordination is not the practice of other denominations, least of all those that are looser in doctrine or broader in practice than ourselves. Many men of great talent and just character are yet not eligible for ordination in the Presbyterian Church in America because of their incomplete adherence to our doctrinal standards, or for other reasons determined by the presbyteries.
That the freedom of the conscience applies to those things which are either contrary to Scripture (as some of the practices of Rome), or else ungoverned by it (Book of Church Order, Preliminary Principle 1).
That the individual’s conscience is not free in those matters – as questions of vital doctrine or gravely consequential practice – in which God has endowed his church with ministerial power or with the power to govern itself. No man may teach whatever he deems right and expect for it to have the approval of the church, for it is the essence of church government that it exists to provide good order and to suppress the teaching of that which tends to cause confusion or disorder.
That presbyteries may sometimes exercise this power to forbid the teaching of that which is not obviously false, if it is thought that such teaching would have an ill effect upon the church. For not all truths are equally profitable, and the manner in which they are taught matters greatly.
That they who desire our denomination to be diverse in its practices – that is, to be a so-called ‘big tent’ and nationwide church – ought to take heed, for this exulting in practical diversity lends itself quite easily to a spirit which regards a broad church as being more important than a doctrinally sound one. History everywhere attests that such a latitudinarian disposition ill serves denominations of all stripes, and that union among those with different doctrines or practices – as between the Old and New Schools, or of the northern church after its union with the Cumberland Presbyterians in the early 1900s – stirs up all manner of difficulty and frequently leads to doctrinal decline.
That the bluntness of speech of these theses, and of other dissenting opinions, is not motivated by hatred.
That these theses are not intended to offend anyone, but are offered as a humble and sincere reproof. For both Scripture and common human experience teach that flatterers are vile and that it is a kindness to speak frankly with one who has erred. “Faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy” (Prov. 27:6).

Tom Hervey is a member of Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Simpsonville, S.C.

With Jesus Christ, you are never without an intercessor that can overcome all your enemies, comfort all your wounds, advocate for all your needs, and sustain even the greatest of doubts and the weakest moments of faith. You are covered in his grace from this day until the very last. You may feel weak and unworthy, but take heart, Jesus lives for you!

To intercede means to intervene on someone’s behalf. It means to entreat, to argue, to plead, and to stand in the gap between two people with a view of reconciliation. Intercession is prayer but of a specific kind. There is much that is mysterious about Jesus’s intercession, but the Bible and great theologians of church history offer some clarity. Referring to Christ’s intercession, the Puritan John Owen defined it as “his continual appearance for us in the presence of God, by virtue of his office as the ‘high priest over the house of God,’ representing the efficacy of his oblation [offering], accompanied with tender care, love, and desires for the welfare, supply, deliverance, and salvation of the church.”[1]
      In other words, by virtue of his all-sufficient atoning sacrifice, Jesus stands at the Father’s right hand in heaven, working and praying for us to accomplish our full salvation.
      Whenever we approach a biblical doctrine, there is the temptation to leave it in the realm of the intellectual. But it is good to consider how the doctrine applies to our lives. How does what we now know of Christ’s intercession make our hearts burn within us (Luke 24:32)?
      Here I will make three primary applications.
Application 1: Christ’s Intercession Reveals His Heart for Sinners
      Though we are justified in Christ for all time when we first trust his saving work, we do not stop sinning until the age to come when we are with him in glory. Though we know the truth of God’s love, we still have low thoughts of God, disbelieving, mistrusting, and doubting him. Though we know we are saved by Christ’s works, not our own, we still fall into the old ruts of our self-salvation projects, denying the power of his life, death, and resurrection. Our fleshly desires may wane, but they do not disappear, and we continue to use God’s good gifts for improper ends. Who will save us from this body of death (Rom. 7:24)? Jesus, by the power of his intercession.
      John Bunyan wrote a whole book about Hebrews 7:25 called Christ a Complete Savior. In that book, he said,
      “Many there be that begin with grace, and end with works, and think that this is the only way…But to be saved and brought to glory, to be carried through this dangerous world, from my first moving after Christ, until I set my foot within the gates of paradise, this is the work of my mediator, of my high priest and intercessor. It is he that fetches us again when we are run away; it is he that lifts us up when the devil and sin have thrown us down; it is he that quickens us when we grow cold; it is he that comforts us when we despair; it is he that obtains fresh pardon when we have contracted sin; and he that purges our consciences when they are loaded with guilt…We are saved by Christ; brought to glory by Christ; and all our works are no otherways made acceptable to God, but by the person and personal excellences and works of Christ.”
      Christ’s intercession is there to save us from the sin that remains. God did not expect us to become perfect and never again struggle after our conversion. He factored our ongoing fight against sin into the equation and provided the intercession of Christ to preserve and encourage us. That shows how great the love of Christ is for us sinners. Why would he intercede if he didn’t care? Why would we be continually on his mind if he did not love us? As a parent loves a child and thinks about them all the time, so Christ considers us and always thinks of our good. He prays on our behalf. He takes our prayers and rewords them on the way up (Rom. 8:26). He holds the door to heaven open for us. He is more committed to our salvation than we are, and he will never leave us nor forsake us. He cares for us and sends affirmations of that care to us by his Spirit.
      The Puritan Thomas Goodwin spoke of 1 Corinthians 2:16, where Paul says we have the “mind of Christ.” You know those moments when you sense a word from the Lord, a verse of Scripture, or a reminder of the love of Christ, those seemingly invasive thoughts that remind you of God’s love? Those are Spirit-sent thoughts from Jesus himself. They are sent down from heaven to tell us what he is thinking of us and for us in that very moment. Those are holy moments with our interceding Christ.
      And in those moments when we find ourselves weak and wounded because of sin, when we long for a holy moment but fear we have blown it big-time, we must remember his intercession. We must remember his heart for sinners and sufferers, how gentle and careful he is with us. Hear Goodwin describe it.
      “Your very sins move him to pity more than to anger…For he suffers with us under our infirmities, and by infirmities are meant sins, as well as other miseries…”
Read More
Related Posts: