Jesus is incredibly clear in his warning of Matthew 12:36–37: “I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” Even our careless words will be judged! That ought to make us pause. This means that the words we speak publicly and privately, carefully, intentionally, or even without thought, will all be judged. 

One of the reasons I absolutely love expository preaching and insist that pastors preach verse-by-verse through books of the Bible for their congregations is because the Word of God is always timely. Rather than preaching hobby-horses or tired and trite topics of interest, expository preaching, when done well, forces the pastor to faithfully handle the texts of Scripture as they come down the pipeline. There’s no guessing about what’s coming next Sunday for the congregation, either. They can rest in the assurance that—Lord-willing—the preaching will pick up in the text where it left off the previous Sunday.
Some, however, worry that expository preaching prevents pastors from engaging with pressing topics of the times. This, however, is hardly ever the case. Our sovereign God has a peculiar way of lining our preaching texts up with pressing events in often unexpected ways.
This was my experience very recently as I have been preaching through the Gospel of Matthew for nearly a year-and-a-half. Recently, there has been some talk about the use of vulgar language by certain evangelicals, and some in our congregation (and some friends outside of our congregation, too), have been asking me about how Christians should understand the use of language. As the Lord would have it, amid these questions, Matthew 12:33–37 lined up as my next sermon, and perfectly answered many of these questions. Below, I will share some highlights from this sermon about Christian speech.
Your Actions and Words Are the Fruit That Reveal Where You Are Rooted
Jesus makes the issue clear. Those who are in Christ ought to speak and act in a righteous way, because, as he plainly states in Matthew 12:33, “Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit.”
Jesus uses the metaphor of the tree and its fruit on more than one occasion and it’s incredibly simple to understand. If I’m a branch on an apple tree, what kind of fruit will I bear? Apples. No one expects to find oranges on an apple tree because a tree will always bear fruit corresponding to the type of tree it is. If an apple tree bears oranges, something has gone horribly askew. It simply isn’t possible. It is, ultimately, against the nature of the branches to bear fruit differing from the rest of the tree.
So it is with people. If we’re saved and rooted in Christ, we’ll be marked by holy speech and righteous deeds. If we’re lost and chained to sin, we’ll be marked by evil speech and wicked deeds. Thus, Jesus said, “Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:4–5).
While we know we are not saved by our works, but by faith in Christ alone, yet it is true that a Christian is known by their speech and actions. Hence, there are evidences of salvation, and our speech is one major evidence of whether or not we’re saved and indwelled by the Holy Spirit.
What Fills the Heart Moves the Mouth
In Matthew 12:34, Jesus is speaking directly to the Pharisees whose pretense and facade of apparent righteousness fell apart when they opened their mouths. Jesus rebuked them and explained, “You brood of vipers! How can you speak good when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.”
Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. This is as straightforward as the previous verse. What you have been filled with will ultimately spill out of you. Whatever occupies your heart will control your tongue.
It would, perhaps, be simple enough to say that this verse simply warns us against foul language, swearing, and cussing. However, this verse means even more still. The context of this rebuke is the larger issue of how the Pharisees have blasphemed Jesus by accusing him of being demon possessed. Rather than praise Jesus for his miracles, the Pharisees blasphemed Christ by claiming “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons” (Matt. 12:24). What makes this language so wicked, sinful, evil, and blasphemous is that it lies about who Jesus truly is, while simultaneously ascribing the miracles he was performing to Satan. Such an accusation tried to rob God of his rightful glory while ascribing the glory to Satan instead. In the process of such a wicked accusation, the Pharisees revealed both their wicked hearts and their sinful allegiance to Satan.
Jesus, knowing this, said of the Pharisees in John 8:44 that, “You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” Those who try to pretend to be righteous will, eventually, be revealed by their language. Their true colors will eventually show. They will, by mere words, reveal where their allegiance lies—whether they belong to Christ or Satan.
Read More
Related Posts:

When do we need to know where another person or group stands in terms of their religious beliefs and theological stances, and when does it not matter so much? It seems to me that in some cases it is very important that we know – and act accordingly – where someone is in terms of their beliefs. But in other cases, it really does not matter very much at all. 

A perennial problem for the Christian is learning how to be in the world but not of it. That is, the believer wants to reach people in the world for Christ, but he does not want to be unduly contaminated by worldly behaviour, worldviews and the like.
And as always, church history shows us that there are extremes to be avoided. Some believers, to remain pure and un-spotted from the world, will withdraw altogether, living in caves, or at least going into monasteries, and so on. And there CAN be a place for some of that activity for some people, to some degree.
The other extreme of course is to totally embrace the world, its values, its beliefs, and its behaviours. But worldliness is something we are repeatedly warned about in Scripture. So the issue once again is about trying to find the biblical balance.
And all this has once again come to a head with the release of the film Sound of Freedom. Much of the recent criticism about it had to do with religious and theological differences. Some folks thought we should stay away from the film altogether because not all those involved in it are fully onside theologically. I already penned two articles looking in detail at those critics and their criticisms.
In that case it was about doctrinal and theological purity. Some Christians thought we must avoid this film like the plague. Never mind the rescue of trafficked children. But I argued – once again – that there is a place for working with others for various worthwhile purposes. It is called co-belligerency.
What I want to discuss here follows on from all that, but it has a somewhat broader application. As I just mentioned, how do we stay “pure” in various ways while living in the world? The New Testament does speak about the need for separation at times. But it also speaks about being involved in the world to make a difference.
As but one example of the former, Christians of course should avoid sexual impurity. So in 1 Corinthians 5 Paul says we are to avoid those involved in sexual immorality. Yet he says that in terms of those claiming to be believers. He says that if we seek to avoid ALL sexually immoral people, then we “would need to go out of the world” (see 1 Cor. 5:9-11).
If Paul were here today he would not be telling us to never buy a coffee at some shop for fear that the barista is sexually immoral. He would not tell us never to fill our cars with petrol because the one taking our cash might be immoral, or an atheist, or a cultist, or a witch. So he would seek for a bit of common sense here. We should as well.
Read More
Related Posts:

From a BA perspective, if the NP asked about how to go forward, I would advise it to publish a purpose and mission statement compatible with PCA officer vows, accept all such within the PCA who desire to participate in order to grow in their understanding of PCA polity and practices, and do away with confidentiality as its functional methodology.  All of this would be workable, however, only after a public apology and due repentance for the way the group has conducted itself essentially as a denomination within the denomination over the past several years.
 
In my day job I function in the role of a business analyst much of the time.  Business analysis (BA) involves helping the business enable change by defining needs and recommending solutions that deliver value to its stakeholders.  We employ many tools and techniques to make that happen, and we will frequently discover misalignment when examining stated goals and objectives and comparing them to actual practices.
I’d like to put on my BA hat to consider the so-called “Presbyleaks” (the release of the National Partnership documents) which occurred last year.  Of particular interest is the characterization of the National Partnership (NP) by TE Kessler as quoted in the article by Travis Scott last November, The Big Leak, Part 1: [1] 
This group exists as a way to resource one another. We want you to feel prepared for the Assembly and engaged in its work on the Presbytery level. This group does not tell you how to vote. Even if I/we make recommendations please remember that we are grateful for diversity. We are looking for unity, not uniformity. Being a part of the National Partnership means that you are committing to participation in the business of our denomination. We will be about the logistics of denominational health; we aren’t a visioning committee.  The NP also creates a place to have a conversation in confidence; nothing here is reproduced and blogged or whatever. Our discussion boards are places to stretch and reason together. Please feel free to use them.
“I have said it before and I’ll say it again: the intent of confidentiality was always to protect those of you who felt you could not be as forthcoming in larger groups. I’ve always wanted the NP to be a place where you can seek advice with confidence that your questions weren’t being used to fuel blog posts. The lack of confidentiality makes no difference in what I share with you. Emails will say pretty much what they would have said.”
In the above we find the purpose, responsibility, and methodology of membership within the NP according to TE Kessler:

Purpose: To resource one another, to prepare its members for effectiveness within their presbyteries and at GA.  Being part of the NP necessitates participation in the business of the denomination, but the NP doesn’t exist to function as a voting bloc.
Responsibility: Participation in the “business” of the denomination, for its “health”.
Methodology: Confidentiality in order to maintain a safe space that facilitates frankness and free expression would otherwise be precluded in open groups, where men may “stretch and reason together”.

Upon closer examination, we find several inherent contradictions in each of these, as well as conflicts with the proscribed practices and polity of the PCA (another task of BA: document analysis, the BCO in this case).
Let’s consider first the stated purpose.  The emails reveal much organization and coordination for votes on overtures at GA, nominations for committees, and activities within Presbyteries[2].  Travis Scott even concedes the political nature of the activities of the NP in his article.  So the stated purpose and the actual activity of the NP are misaligned, which raises the question of the accuracy of the stated purpose.
Training videos, seminars, and articles in public forums open to all interested parties would function as much better tools to equip individuals to serve effectively in the denomination rather than secret societies of email groups on a rather broad scale.  The chosen method of selective “resourcing” betrays a suspicion and lack of trust, which precludes making such endeavors open for all: only the right people are to be resourced.
Second, consider the stated responsibility of each member in the NP: participation in the business of the denomination, for its health.  The truth is that every officer in the PCA must vow to perform all the duties of his office, which includes participation in its courts.  Qualifications for church office include familiarity and acceptance of PCA polity (BCO 21-4 & 21-5 for teaching elders (TEs), 24-6 for ruling elders (REs)).  So any officer who engages in a secret society or group for the supposed purpose of doing the “business” of the church fails to understand the very nature of Presbyterian polity, and tacitly breaks his vows for ordination.  The ecclesiastical jurisdiction within the PCA is explicitly stated to be a joint rather than a several power (BCO 1-5), and secret groups by their very nature constitute a breach of the PCA form of government.
Third, consider the stated methodology: confidentiality.  The need for confidentiality usually arises when there are sensitive topics to be considered.  We commonly see this in business settings where corporate concerns are meant to be kept from the competition, or where personal HR matters are discussed.  In the case of the NP, however, the premise for confidentiality is for the sake of personal growth and development, where its members may “stretch and reason together” without having to worry about being taken out of context and without having to deal with slander by outsiders (whether inside the church or not).  But in light of the purported purpose and responsibility of NP members, how is it possible that REs and TEs in particular are afraid to own the truth of their convictions?
It seems incredulous that men who, in the case of TEs, have completed college and seminary, been examined by presbytery prior to being ordained and installed as church officers, men who regularly teach and preach the truth, giving correction to those who err (a requirement for the office), how is it that they of all people need a safe space to share what they really believe and think in order to “stretch and reason together”?
In my day job as a business analyst one of the ground rules we often employ in group meetings is called “stand your ground.”  This ground rule sets the expectation that participants in the meeting will own their ideas and share them in the meeting to improve productivity, as opposed to leaving the meeting and telling everyone afterwards that it was a total waste of time.  The courts of the church are supposed to be the space of deliberation and discussion, where men own their ideas and the church as a whole votes on them.  Men serving as TEs and REs must not be shrinking violets who are afraid to stand for the truth as they understand it for fear of opposition.  Nor should they be too proud to be open to instruction, even publicly. Our Lord has a word or two to say about those who are ashamed of Him and His words in this present age (Luke 9:26).
What’s more, confidentiality and large numbers tend to be mutually exclusive, and practically a fool’s errand.  The more individuals who are in on a secret, the more likely it is to be leaked.  As cited above, TE Kessler has stated that any lack of confidentiality would make no difference in what was shared in the emails.  If that is the case, why the need for an exclusive email group in the first place, apart from fear of being challenged or ridiculed?  The truth will stand up to scrutiny, whereas error and subterfuge will not.
So from a BA perspective, if the NP asked about how to go forward, I would advise it to publish a purpose and mission statement compatible with PCA officer vows, accept all such within the PCA who desire to participate in order to grow in their understanding of PCA polity and practices, and do away with confidentiality as its functional methodology.  All of this would be workable, however, only after a public apology and due repentance for the way the group has conducted itself essentially as a denomination within the denomination over the past several years.
Nathan Bowers is a member of First Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Ft. Oglethorpe, Ga.
[1] Travis Scott, The Big Leak, Pt. 1, https://www.semperref.org/articles/the-big-leak-pt-1?fbclid=IwAR2ymcY18V8sn1A64M8u6e0RN6G5ix9PAAWajpWPr2YADqqrQbFZMqh0vvI accessed Jan. 22, 2022.
[2] Al Taglieri, National Partnership Called to Repentance, https://theaquilareport.com/national-partnership-called-to-repentance/, accessed Jan. 22, 2022.