by Josh Sommer | Mar 31, 2020 | Biblical Theology, Ecclesiology, Hermeneutics
Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. — James 5:14
For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. — 1 Corinthians 11:30-31
For bodily exercise profits a little, but godliness is profitable for all things, having promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come. — 1 Timothy 4:8
But if so much concern be discovered for the safety of the body, we may conclude, how much care and attention should be devoted to the safety of the soul, which in the sight of God is of infinitely superior value? — John Calvin
This is the article that I didn’t want to write. Some questions I’ve asked in carefully considering what I should say and how to say it are: Do I use names? What sort of rhetoric should I use? How can I obey and glorify God in this response? I do not take this response lightly, and I’ve carefully considered what follows. The purpose of this article is not to call people out, it’s not to be argumentative, but it’s to edify the brethren through fruitful discourse. My motivator here is love—both love of God and love of neighbor.
The men to whom I’m responding are close to me, not personally, but doctrinally. Therefore, they and I are united upon the truth of the gospel in Jesus Christ. Because of this, I was surprised to see implied charges of murder and wicked intent coming from some of these men, the charges being made against churches who have chosen to assemble during these perilous times.
Because of the approach I’ve elected to take, I’m going to paraphrase some of these statements without mentioning names or quoting them directly with the exception of one article, the author of which voluntarily made himself known and thus, I will go ahead in citing his material directly. I am not trying to be evasive. I’m only trying to protect the names of individuals I care about. I am also uncertain as to whether or not they would approve of their names being mentioned. Thus, I’ve opted to maintain privacy at this point.
Three Texts & Flimsy Rhetoric
Men throughout the ages have utilized Scripture within their rhetoric. Rhetoric is a good thing if used properly (cf. the apostle Paul in Acts 17). But rhetoric in which the Scriptures become nothing more than a rhetorical tool of persuasion is flimsy rhetoric. Flimsy rhetoric happens when a person takes a verse (say, John 3:16), and hastily misapplies it in their argumentation without regard to the actual meaning of the text itself. An example might be as follows: “In John 3:16, it says ‘whosoever will.’ Therefore, free will initiates our salvation!” Such flimsy rhetoric takes for granted an application that has yet to be argued for. This is to beg the question. More exactly stated, it’s a commission of the petitio principii fallacy, or circular reasoning.
There are three texts some have used in order to argue for the cancelation of worship services in obedience to governing authorities at both local and state levels.
Matthew 12:12
Of how much more value then is a man than a sheep? Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.
Some have drawn application from this text obliging Christians to cancel worship in order to look out for the welfare of their fellow brethren during the spread of COVID-19. But the context of this passage is within the context of Jesus healing a man on the Sabbath, at which point the Pharisees attempted to chide Him for performing work on a day of rest (Ex. 20:10).
It is impossible to get from “be willing to alter your worship pattern for the sake of your brethren” to “cease having a worship pattern altogether” without more information from the text itself. This text does not explicitly nor necessarily intimate such a wild conclusion. Jesus’ healing work of mercy happened within the context of worship, not instead or apart from it. Jesus’ works on the Sabbath always served to show forth the beauty of that Day rather than detract from it in any way.
Works of mercy serve to adorn what is already there, not abrogate it.
Romans 13:1
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.
With Matthew 12:12 in hand, Romans 13:1ff is then invoked as part of a cumulative case against holding worship during the COVID-19 outbreak. As we have just seen, nothing about Matthew 12:12 makes cancelling of worship necessary, let alone lawful (cf. Ex. 20; Deut. 5; Jn. 20; Acts 2:42; 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1-4; Heb. 4:9).
Therefore, it is a wide stretch to suggest canceling worship is an act of obedience per Romans 13. Romans 13 does not give the government the authority to alter or do away with what God has commanded. The church should make alterations according to the light of nature—insofar as God’s Law allows—if she perceives an imminent threat. But this is not the same as canceling services altogether.
Matthew 23:23
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.
I have seen this verse used to imply those who continue divine worship at this time are murderers at worst and Pharisees at best. The claim here is that this text provides precedent for suspending positive laws in order to uphold moral laws. But this isn’t Jesus’ point. Not even remotely.
The distinction here is not so much between positive laws and moral laws as it is between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. The Pharisees were keen to fulfill external obedience, yet their hearts were far from God. They lacked sincerity in their worship because they had not been born again, a point Jesus elsewhere emphasizes during a discussion with—you guessed it—a Pharisee (Jn. 3:3). The Pharisees were hypocrites because they continued on with the external affairs of worship while neglecting the spirit of the laws they sought to uphold—justice, mercy, and faith. Thus, they should have obeyed the ceremonial laws under which they lived while not neglecting their substance.
Charges of Pharisaism
An article by David de Bruyn titled ‘Wrong Responses to a Loss of Corporate Worship’, seeks to draw comparison from events following the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. to our current situation.
De Bruyn begins by saying, “When Israel lost its Temple in A. D. 70, you might imagine it would have prompted much soul-searching and repentance among the rabbis that had rejected Jesus as Messiah.” The destruction of the Temple, mind you, is supposed to be seen as analogous to the current restriction on worship imposed by the state during the COVID-19 outbreak. Much “soul-searching” was to be expected then as it is to be expected now. Yet, in and after 70 A.D., there was a lack of soul-searching just as there is now. These are the lines being drawn at the very outset of the article.
The general thrust of the text seems to be: Stop trying to continue your worship. Instead, understand that worship has been suspended for a season. Use this as a time to examine your own heart.
He continues by saying:
Instead of soul-searching as to why the central place of Jewish corporate worship had been removed, the Pharisees capitalized on the moment, knowing the Sadducees had lost their power. The synagogue would now become the center of Jewish religion, and the study of Torah a de facto form of atonement.
Was it bad for the Jews to want to continue worship as a result of the destruction of the Temple? Yes. But why? Because they had rejected the Messiah and, thus, were left without a lawful means of worship. This is not the case for many churches who have opted to continue worshiping during these trying times. New Covenant people are free to worship according to New Covenant ordinances unless God Himself changes or abolishes those ordinances through special revelation.
Pharisees were in sin while proceeding with Judaistic worship, not because they wanted to worship per se, but because they wanted to worship in the wrong way, that is, according to the Old Covenant instead of the New. They had rejected Christ, and with Him they rejected all lawful worship.
He goes on:
My argument was simple: we should mourn the loss of corporate worship, encourage home and family worship, pastor and disciple through technological means, but not attempt to create the impression that we are really still conducting corporate worship, in the truest sense.
He has just finished arguing against live-stream video “worship.” I would agree with his assessment on that point. Christians cannot worship through the internet. But what’s his alternative? Shut it down completely? If it’s a violation of the Regulative Principle of Worship to live-stream a worship service under the pretence of that live-stream being an optional mode of divine worship, then surely it’s a violation of the Regulative Principle of Worship to cancel worship altogether.
Where in the Scriptures are pastors given the authority to cancel worship? Historically, only God Himself has done this, not through natural means, but through special revelation in concert with providence (i.e. a pronounced or prophesied judgment). De Bruyn continues:
Instead of asking how God might be chastening us, we find a way to notice the crisis without pondering its meaning, to respond to its exigencies without responding to its existence. That’s exactly how you end up like the rabbis of the first century: use necessity to justify pragmatism.
Unlike the providential hindrances throughout biblical antiquity, today’s crisis has no specially revealed divine commentary. Thus, De Bruyn’s interpretation of current events may be different than, but just as valid as, mine. Why? Because God hasn’t told us what they mean. God may have sent COVID-19 to test His church, to see whether or not she would continue to worship Him despite adversity and affliction. Or He could’ve sent COVID-19 to cancel the worship of His people. Which speculative assertion is correct? We have no way of knowing unless God Himself were to tell us. But, God’s canon is closed, leaving us with one option: Obey what He has told us through His holy Word.
He concludes his article by asking multiple questions, the answers to which would be purely speculative. Though De Bruyn never indicts pastors for continuing worship, implied in at least two of his articles (this one included) is that the pandemic equals prevention of corporate worship. But this is not so. There are many good churches who continue to meet while taking necessary precautions to ensure the safety of their people. There is nothing providentially preventing God’s people from corporate worship, and many churches who continue to gather across the nation prove just that.
Conclusion
There is much more that could be said here. Unfortunately, I have run out of both space and time.
There are ways for churches to continue gathering according to the biblical ordinance of corporate worship.
I fear Christians are seeing only two options: (1) tempt God and, in a grand act of idiocy, continue services as if the virus isn’t a thing (this does happen); or (2) capitulate to the government and cease worship for the foreseeable future (this happens even more).
There is, however, a third option: (3) adapt and overcome through obedience to Christ. God has not taken away our worship. Only the Word of God could take away our worship. He has, however, set a trial before us through which He is working the good of those who love and fear Him (Rom. 8:28). We must obey God rather than men, and we must obey according to the wisdom of the Scriptures.
by Josh Sommer | Mar 26, 2020 | Uncategorized
This is a sermon manuscript for a sermon preached on 3/22/2020 for the purposes of encouraging my congregation in the midst of such strange times. This sermon is based in 2 Corinthians 11:22-29.
The affliction of God’s people is nothing new.
Woe are we if we fall into believing that which is not true. Christ’s church is a ship designed for the roughest waters. She has an ironclad bow, forged by the mercy-hammer of God which allows her to do her work. What is her work? To face the tallest, meanest swells in all the sea. These are swells that would capsize even the most advanced war fighting vessel. But war fighting vessels, at least those in this world, are created by men. Our ship has been built by God. Her name is New Jerusalem. The grace of God fills her sails, and her rudder is the Word of truth. She is a war fighting machine, with impenetrable plates of glory round about her. Her Captain is radiant in beauty, arraigned in shimmering armor which no man could wear, dawning a sword too heavy for any man to wield. He is knowledgeable, always ahead of the storm. He makes decisions in such a calculated manner you’d think Him to be a god. Yet alas, He is a God. No, He is the God. The only God, the Lord Jesus Christ!
The Lord God is her captain.
Christ’s church is a ship. It’s not designed for smooth waters, but for choppy, violent seas. Now we must ask three questions. First, why is Christ’s ship designed in such a way? Why is it made for violent rather than calm waters? Second, what is she made out of? What are the materials with which God builds this ship? Third, where is she going? Does she have direction? Is she lost? Can she be destroyed? Will she reach the shore before she capsizes in the waves?
Why Is Christ’s Ship Designed This Way?
Exegetical Part
“Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? So am I. (v. 23)”
Here Paul begins laying forth the context of his ministerial difficulty. Paul, in many ways, is a microcosm example for the entirety of Christ’s church. Paul had joy, but he also experienced many trials, some of which we’ll recount here. He compares himself to the Jews only to show that he himself is familiar with their ways and indeed comes from them in the first place. He is, according to the flesh, one of them. He is a Hebrew. In Philippians 3:5, he says, “circumcised on the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee.” Paul was exceedingly Jewish in ethnic, cultural, and religious origin.
“Are they ministers of Christ?—I speak as a fool—I am more: in labors more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequently, in deaths often. (v. 23)”
Here he asks an interesting question. “Are they ministers of Christ?” The implied answer is no, especially since Paul follows up his question with the qualification that he’s speaking like a fool. He is, again, utilizing the art of rhetoric. Are the Jews ministers of Christ? Obviously not, but to the extent that they show forth the oracles of God which no doubt point to Christ, “I am more,” he says. God, after all, revealed the Old Testament through the prophets of Israel. They had the Word of God first. Yet Paul says, notwithstanding this fact, He is more a minister of the climax of revelation, the Lord Jesus Christ, than they are. The Jews, at this point, had largely rejected Christ, with the exception of very few. Thus, they rejected the entirety of the Old Testament in the sense that the entire purpose of the Old Testament was to point toward Christ.
“From the Jews five times I received forty stripes minus one. (v. 24)”
Paul begins now to recount his persecutions, starting with the torture he received from the Jews. “Forty stripes minus one,” was a unique punishment of the Jews reserved as one of the most humiliating punishments. Such a punishment would’ve taken place in the synagogue. These are Paul’s own kinsman according to the flesh. They turned their backs on him just as they turned their backs on his Christ.
It is significant to note here that Paul says “five times.” He was given the “forty stripes minus one” on five separate occasions making for 195 stripes or lashes in all. It is a wonder how his bodily frame would have withstood so much punishment if it weren’t for the kind preserving grace of God. It appears the Lord had equipped Paul for such a life.
“Three times I was beaten with rods; once I was stoned… (v. 25a)”
Here, he continues to list out two more instances wherein he was persecuted by men for believing and preaching the pure gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. The punishment with rods was a Roman punishment. Paul was a Roman citizen and would have received punishment by rod for disobeying the Roman state. Acts 16:22-23 records one of these instances. It says:
Then the multitude rose up together against them; and the magistrates tore off their clothes and commanded them to be beaten with rods. And when they had laid many stripes on them, they threw them into prison, commanding the jailer to keep them securely.
Acts 14:19 records the stoning of the apostle Paul by a Jewish mod at Lystra. It says, “Then Jews from Antioch and Iconium came there; and having persuaded the multitudes, they stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city, supposing him to be dead.” Paul was a persecuted man for the sake of the Lord Jesus Christ. Likewise, the church as a whole is a persecuted bride for the sake of her Lord and bridegroom. Times of prosperity for Christ’s church, as we’ve had for the last couple hundred years are extremely rare throughout church history.
“three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been in the deep… (v. 25b)”
Now he moves from persecution to providential hindrances which no doubt created much trial for Paul, and indeed, throughout the last two millennia, has created both trial and tribulation for Christ’s church. He was apparently shipwrecked on three separate occasions. These three shipwrecks occurred before a fourth which is recorded in Acts 27. So he was shipwrecked a total of four times. He says “a night and a day I have been in the deep.” Presumably this means he was stranded in the ocean until he was able to find a shoreline. In Acts 27:42-44 we learn that the crew of the shipwrecked vessel had to jump overboard and swim to shore. It is possible this event was what led Paul to be in the deep for a night and a day. Perhaps the shore was a great distance.
“in journeys often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils of my own countrymen, in perils of the Gentiles, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren… (v. 26)”
Do you see the amount of trouble Paul went through for the sake of Christ and for the sake of His church! Perilous journey, perilous waters, perilous robbers, perilous countrymen, perilous Gentiles, perilous cities, the perilous wilderness, the perilous sea, the perilous false brethren! What love did Paul have for the brethren if it wasn’t the love of Christ. The apostle Paul is truly an example for every Christian who would give him or herself up for the sake of their brothers and sisters in Christ!
“in weariness and toil, in sleeplessness often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness… (v. 27)”
Here in v. 27 we learn he was weary, he toiled. He spent sleepless nights laboring for the saints. He went hungry and thirsty in great sacrifice for the brethren. He fasted often, and was cold and naked at times. Could you imagine giving yourselves up for this church like Paul gave himself up for the churches of his day? This is the call of every Christian. It’s the call of Christ’s church, to a sacrificial, Christ-like love. No matter if we find ourselves in danger, poverty, or prosperity.
In v. 28, he gives up his reasoning. Besides all of this, what comes upon him daily? What’s constantly on his mind? It’s his deep concern for all the churches. A lot of people might call this paranoia. But Paul would just call it the love of Christ! Brethren, you wonder why the church is designed like she is in this world? It is because she’s been called to a daunting task! She has been called to steadfastly love with the love Christ has given her through His Spirit.
Doctrinal Part
We live at a time when prosperity has been taken for granted. But prosperity for Christ’s church is not the rule. It is the exception to the rule. Know therefore that what’s happening now, the uncertainty of our present situation, is really normal for Christ’s people. This side of glory, we are considered the church militant. Why is that? It’s because we exist in a world of sin, fallen by sin. We live with the various miseries both of our sin and the sins of others. In Hebrews 13:20-21, the author writes:
Now the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the eternal covenant, even Jesus our Lord, equip you in every good thing to do His will, working in us that which is pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen.
The expectation, the hope, is that God does and will equip His saints. The word there for equip is καταρτίζω and could be rendered to make ready. You can think of a general making his troops ready for war. The church is a wartime vessel. She is equipped to take on the most volatile seas, and she is fitted with the defenses and weaponry necessary to resist all enemy attack. Why is she built this way? She’s built this way because of the world in which she presently exists. Glory is not yet here. It lies in our future, and we possess it in reversion, but have not yet seen it. We wait for it, and we wait for it anxiously. Not fearing men, not crumbling under the pressures of the world, but moving forward toward the shores of heaven.
Practical Part
We should expect situations like the present situation we are in.
The church is designed and equipped for hardship, and we should be able to infer from that very fact that persecution and other trials are to be expected by God’s people. These kinds of things should not catch us off guard. Toward the end of the Beatitudes, I preached on persecution for the sake of Christ. We should be prepared for situations like this because God Himself has told us that it would come to pass.
Consider also that since the church is designed the way it’s designed, Christ is poised to bring us through even the toughest of trials. Remember, this is a ship built for even the tallest ocean swells. Captain Jesus will guide us, successfully, to shores of everlasting glory in the end. The majesty and mystery of the gospel of the Lord Jesus! How it ought to shrink all of your present concerns. How worldly worries ought to be dwarfed while meditating upon the goodness and kindness of God through Christ! Heaven! Look toward heaven! We are built by God, designed for that destination. We will arrive in due time!
What Is Christ’s Ship Made Out Of?
Exegetical Part
We know the church is built for a purpose. But what is she made out of? What are her tools for success in such a volatile, violent, and hateful world?
“Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to stumble, and I do not burn with indignation? (v. 29)”
In this verse, Paul expresses his deep concern for the church. He is weak along with the weak. He sympathizes with fellow believers. When you hurt your finger, it’s not just your finger that has to deal with the pain. Your whole body is affected. Your brain receives transmission from nerves in your finger that communicates pain. You feel the pain. If we are all one body, how could we not all hurt when one member hurts? How could we not all be weak if one of us is weak? Do we love one another like this? Furthermore, Paul burns with indignation when fellow brethren are made to stumble. When Satan causes them to slip by means of a false teacher or some kind of wicked temptation. That causes Paul to become angry. Do we have that kind of righteous indignation for the sake of one another?
Implied here in v. 29 is one of the ingredients which causes the ship of the church to move about the world successfully. While Christ is the captain, He administrates His authority to elders or pastors. In Paul’s day, there were apostles who often functioned as pastors. They were Christ’s mouth-piece. In Ephesians 4:11-13 says this:
And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ…
Christ is the captain, but His pastors are the helmsmen. They’ve been put in place to steer the rudder of Christ’s ship, the church, by preaching the Word and administrating the ordinances. What’s the purpose of pastors and teachers? They are purposed to edify or build up (like a building) Christ’s church.
In Acts 15:32, it is written, “Now Judas and Sila, themselves being prophets also, exhorted and strengthened the brethren with many words.” Here we have another building material which enhances the strength and longevity of Christ’s wartime vessel, the preaching of the Word. So, He’s given to the church pastors and teachers, and those pastors and teachers preach the Word. The preaching of the Word, if it is so blessed by the Spirit of God, strengthens the church of Christ.
In 2 Peter 1:10, Peter writes, “Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make you call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble…” God has given us the ability to obey His Word with diligence, by the power of the Spirit. Diligence in Christ causes us to be strengthened in assurance of faith, that we would stumble less and less as God prunes us of our sinful branches.
Doctrinal Part
Christ’s wartime vessel, the church, is made out of many different materials useful for battle, useful for surviving the most violent swells. In 1 Thessalonians 5:8, Paul makes mention of the breastplate of faith and love, and a helmet of the hope or expectation of salvation. These may as well be adapted to the whole church. The bride has put on the breastplate. The ship is clad in plates of golden armor, smelted for the highest purity—removing all dross, leaving only the glimmering remains of faith and love. We are the church militant and have been equipped to fight. Remember, in 1 Corinthians 1:4-5, Paul writes:
I thank my God always concerning you for the grace of God which was given to you by Christ Jesus, that you were enriched in everything by Him in all utterance and all knowledge…
We are enriched in everything we need for this battle. So, in 1 Timothy 6:12, Paul can instruct Timothy to, “Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, to which you were also called and have confessed the good confession in the presence of many witnesses.” Toward the end of his ministry, Paul writes to Timothy once more and says, “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.” We are the church militant, designed by our Builder to fight this fight. We have everything we need.
Practical Part
The seas of this world are swelling higher than they have in man, many years. Not only is there an unfamiliar virus affecting many people and their families, but there is an evil, wicked ruling class that would exploit such a virus for their own political agenda. Perhaps the church has not been targeted specifically, but the biblical ideals which she espouses are under attack in a most obvious fashion. No living American has seen anything like this. The presumptuous movements of governing authorities are unprecedented. Over the last two weeks, Americans have been left with less liberty than they had since prior to the Revolutionary War under the rule of the English crown. Millions are confined to their homes, not because they are sick, but because they could be sick. The right to assemble has been supposedly extinguished in many parts of the country.
What a surprise! Are you thrown off guard? Has your boat been rocked? Why! This is the norm for the churches of God throughout church history. The freedoms that were afforded to us in this country are extremely rare and represent the exception to the rule, not the rule itself in terms of the last 2,000 years. Do not be disturbed. Do not marvel. We’ve already learned from Psalm 2 that the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain. The church, brothers and sisters, was designed for this kind of storm. Indeed, this is a storm we’ve sailed many times before. And the weapons of our warfare have proved more than sufficient.
Where Is Christ’s Ship Going?
Exegetical Part
We have seen why Christ’s church is built the way she’s built, and we’ve seen with what materials she has been constructed. Now we need to ask about her destination. Where is Christ’s wartime ship traveling? We know how she will get there. It’s by grace and by grace alone. And that grace is just as sure and certain as the existence of God Himself. Now, Christ’s ship has one destination, and it’s not a destination in this world. In Revelation 21:1-4, we read:
Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”
In his The Pilgrim’s Progress, John Bunyan described the eschatology of the Christian in terms of a city, a celestial city, that is, a city built and established in the heavens. It has a higher and better existence than anything in this present world. And this city will be the capital city of the new heavens and the new earth—the New Jerusalem (Rev. 3:12; 21:2; Heb. 12:22). When we arrive at this city, when Christ’s churchly ship arrives safely on the shores of this heavenly commonwealth, it will be a ship at rest. It will be a ship that is no longer taking on the raging swells of the ocean of the world as she is now. She will no longer be the church militant, no longer a wartime vessel. She will be the church victorious, a perfected church, a church at rest in Christ Jesus. Revelation 21:9-13 illuminates our destination as a church in a most beautiful manner when it says:
Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls filled with the seven last plagues came to me and talked with me, saying, “Come, I will show you the bride, the Lamb’s wife.” And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, having the glory of God. Her light was like a most precious stone, like a jasper stone, clear as crystal. Also she had a great and high wall with twelve gates, and twelve angels at the gates, and names written on them, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel: three gates on the east, three gates on the north, three gates on the south, and three gates on the west.
This is the finished product! This is where we will be when we arrive upon calmer shores! The Lamb’s wife will finally be at rest. She will no longer need her battle raiments. Her cumbersome armor will be laid down at the feet of Christ. Her fight will be finished. She will have the glory of God fully made manifest in her and she will worship God and the Lamb forever and ever. That is our destination, brethren.
This means what? This means we’re not there yet. There is still a long difficult road to travel. We remember Paul’s struggles. His persecution and his suffering shipwreck, but more than this, we remember the sufferings and scourgings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Our life as a church, this side of glory, should look none other than the of the apostles. To the apostles, Jesus promised this, “they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons. You will be brought before kings and rulers for My name’s sake (Lk. 21:12).” And in the Beatitudes, He includes a blessing for such persecution, “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 5:10).” You see? The choppy, high swells which violently rail against our battleship are the persecutions and other trials we face in this life. But those trials, according to King Jesus Himself, lead us to the kingdom of heaven, which has been purchased by His blood and mediated to His New Covenant people.
Doctrinal Part
Writing a letter to a woman who had recently lost her infant daughter, Samuel Rutherford says:
Ye see her not, yet she doth shine in another country. If her glass was but a short hour, what she wanteth of time that she hath gotten of eternity; and ye have to rejoice that ye have now some plenishing up in heaven. Build your nest upon no tree here; for ye see God hath sold the forest to death; and every tree whereupon we would rest is ready to be cut down, to the end we may fly and mount up, and build upon the Rock, and dwell in the holes of the Rock.
Keep your eyes trained on the future. Our treasure is not here. Our treasure is not in our personal autonomy, our liberty, our rights. God has consigned this forest to death. It’s all going to be cut down and lit on fire. No. Our home is in the heavenlies. Our treasures are there, not here. Our ship will find no port in the midst of raging waters. For she sails onward in hopes of calm seas, and a glimmering city on a hill where God and the Lamb will be her place of worship.
The doctrine of Christian eschatology, the one where Christ is center and our end is sure and certain in Him, ought to be of utmost comfort during these times of uncertainty. This world is always uncertain. The hearts of wicked men cannot be predicted with any greater accuracy than can the swells in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. We, therefore, have no hope or trust in the present situation. In the best of times, we are called toward Christ. In the worst of times, this doesn’t change, we are called toward Christ.
Practical Part
Forward, brothers and sisters. That is the direction Christ has charted for His ship, and it is the direction I, as your frail and dependent helmsman intend to direct us! Therefore, as poor, persecuted Paul did, through the midst of trial, we fight the good fight, and we run to finish the race well. This looks like faithfulness. Faithfulness to who? Faithfulness to Christ, who gave Himself up for us; who purchased us; who has sat us in the heavenlies with Him. We have a greater inheritance, one that far exceeds all riches and glories in this world. Wicked men can burn this place down, and it matters not to us. Our treasure lay elsewhere.
by Josh Sommer | Mar 17, 2020 | Biblical Theology, Politics, Practical Theology
“Look!” he answered, “I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire; and they are not hurt, and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.” — Daniel 3:25
In less than two weeks, pandemic numbers continue to rise at an unprecedented rate, and Americans in various places have been confined to quarters by fiat government orders. The liberties we once thought we had have become a thing of the past in a most obvious fashion. Understandably, many are scared, wondering what the future months hold. The light, if any, seems dim at the end of the tunnel, especially since Trump has announced that these preventative quarantine measures could last into the Summer.
Christians, however, ought to understand this situation according to a whole different set of considerations. While the world will do its best to elicit maximal amounts of fear, the church ought to maintain a cool and collective head.
Shadrach, Meshach, Abed-Nego, & Some Context
Just prior to the events recorded in the passage you read above, King Nebuchadnezzar gave orders to the people that they should worship the golden image he had erected at the sound of the horn, flute, harp, lyre, and psaltry in symphony (Dan. 3:1-6). But there were certain, faithful Jews—a remnant, if you will—the three of which were Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego. They refused to worship the statue (v. 12). As a result, the king grew in fury and brought the three rebellious Jews to stand trial before him. He issued a threat, saying, “…if you do not worship, you shall be cast immediately into the midst of a burning fiery furnace. And who is the god who will deliver you from my hands?“ Having been warned by the king, the three men responded as follows:
O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. If that is the case, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will deliver us from your hand, O king. But if not, let it be known to you, O king, that we do not serve your gods, nor will we worship the gold image which you have set up.
I would be interested to know just how many of today’s professing Christians would have told Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego that they “need to submit to the authorities” because “Romans 13 commands them to do so.” Would they cloak such demands in “love” and “charity”? Who knows. But there are certainly some parallels between what these three men underwent thousands of years ago and what the Western church now faces. How far will we allow the government to define our worship? How long will we allow them to possess the keys which rightly belong to the church?
Similar questions must’ve been circling through the minds of many Jews during Daniel’s day while under the rule of Nebuchadnezzar. And rightfully so. They are important questions with which we must wrestle, even in the land of so-called liberty.
The point here, however, is that the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain. The situation within which the three men in Daniel 3 found themselves is the status quo. We shouldn’t expect it to be any other way. God Himself has declared this to be the way in which worldly governments and peoples behave (Ps. 2:1). All politics aside, this is the context in which Christ’s bride finds herself. So, the question is not so much, “What do we let them get away with?” It’s more, “How do we love Christ through all of this?” And, “How do we love our neighbors?” I believe the answer to either question precludes reflexive fear, doubt, etc. And the reason reflexivity would be an inappropriate response in this case is because of the God we profess to worship.
We do not worship statues. We worship the God who goes before us. The God who stands with us in the flames of uncertainty and eminent shipwreck.
God In the Fire
The author of Hebrews 13:5 says, “Let your conduct be without covetousness; be content with such things as you have. For He Himself has said, ‘I will never leave you nor forsake you.’” The bride of Christ, like Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego, is in the flames. She’s in the furnace of the world, and the world would love nothing more than to burn her up and watch her ashes blow away with the wind. But just as God has already declared the norm for the post-lapse (fallen) world, so too has He declared the norm for the church militant, “I will never leave you nor forsake you,” with, “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 5:10),” and with, “If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you (Jn. 15:20).”
Persecution is the norm for the church militant, and with it, suffering, and even bodily death. However, held along with this reality are two other parallel truths. First, the kingdom of God belongs to us. Second, God is with us and will never forsake us.
When the king had finally thrown the three men into the furnace, by utilizing his government assets (Dan. 3:20), the flames were hotter than they ever had been (v. 22). Yet, upon a second glance, the king and his men realized that there weren’t three men standing in the furnace. There were four. And not only this, but neither of the four were being consumed by the white-hot flames. Looking closer, the king noticed that the appearance of the fourth man was like “the Son of God.”
Immanuel, God with us (Matt. 1:23), is that fourth man. Just as He was with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego in the fire of Nebuchadnezzar’s furnace, so too He is with us to this day. He will never allow us to be consumed. He will never allow us to be crushed. He will bring us through COVID-19 and state oppression just as He brought the Jews through long seasons of exile. Just as He delivered Daniel’s friends through the furnace, so too He will escort His bride to rivers of peace.
This promise is as sure as God’s presence in the Person and work of Christ nearly two-thousand years ago. There, in a dusty little sand-box just off the shore of the western Mediterranean Sea, the God-Man saved His bride. The flames no longer burn, and death ceases to sting. He’s come to stand with us.
For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. — Romans 8:18-19
by Josh Sommer | Feb 6, 2020 | Uncategorized
Recently, Dr. Carl Ellis of Reformed Theological Seminary (RTS), wrote an article designed to clarify his position after some of his comments came to light here.
First, let me state that I am grateful for the time Ellis spent in clarifying what he believes. Second, let me also state that I believe Dr. Ellis to be a brother in Christ. Thus, what follows, though perhaps uncomfortable, is intended for the edification of Ellis and I’s readership. It’s not an effort to tear down a man, or make someone else look ridiculous. It is not an attempt at slander. This article is an attempt at edification (Eph. 4:29).
That said, I have to take issue with Ellis’ article because while it was clarifying, it raised some additional questions. I want to ask those questions here, and also engage some points in the article I find to be problematic if not troublesome. Before you begin reading, I would encourage you to read Ellis’ article in its entirety, and please read this article in its entirety before commenting.
I. His Beliefs
I am grateful that Ellis “stands with the Word of God” as infallible and inerrant in its original manuscripts. This statement is consistent with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. I also appreciate his commitment to the authority of the Bible. But, just a few paragraphs later, he says something I find to be problematic, something unclear. He writes:
Finally, I am unapologetically a follower of Christ. I am also, in God’s sovereignty, an African American man who has lived the majority of life in the 20th Century. I believe according to Acts 17:26 that this is the culture, time and place God has given me to do His Kingdom work, and thus I see it as a gift from Him imbued with purpose. That purpose has been to explore His work in the world from a particular non-dominant cultural point of view.
Unfortunately, here Ellis uses the same language he used in the video I linked above where he made reference to power structures, privilege and other concepts original to critical theory. Moreover, his last sentence affirms the legitimacy of standpoint epistemology—the idea that people of different cultures, ethnicities, (insert any distinguishing factor), come to Christian theology from different perspectives and do theology through the lens of that respective set of a priori experiences.
So, Ellis appears to contradict his second paragraph under this point where he says, “Second, my worldview is solely derived from the Scriptures.” His worldview is his perspective if indeed that perspective (culture or ethnicity) is a priori, or prior to the Christian Scriptures—that is to say, if he uses his perspective as an epistemic starting point.
II. Social Religions
Here, Ellis says:
But as a pastor in the seminary setting, I believe they should be studied against a proper biblical Christology and anthropology, with a full understanding of their deficiencies in producing anything close to a Kingdom agenda.
He needs to define his terms. What is a biblical anthropology according to Ellis? Does it include standpoint or perspectival epistemology? If it does, many people would strongly disagree that that constitutes a biblical anthropology. See problems here. What’s a kingdom agenda? If it’s anything like what SEBTS is doing, we need to talk. Mormons, for example, use a dictionary’s worth of the same terms as orthodox Christians, all with different meanings. Just because Ellis uses orthodox language doesn’t mean it’s all defined in an orthodox way. Ironically, he addresses this problem below, but he fails to meet his own standard.
For instance, if the “Kingdom agenda” includes seeking out individuals of color in order to diversify a congregation, a kind of Christianized affirmative action, we have some serious problems. Not only is such an approach completely and utterly racist, it’s totally unbiblical. Ellis needs to work harder to clarify what he means here. Again, I appreciate what he’s written, but it’s simply not enough.
III. The Academy
Ellis discusses the erosion of orthodox thought at the college and university level. Though I am happy to see him recognize the reality of such lapses in biblical Christianity in academia (a centuries-long plague), as with his previous points, he doesn’t go far enough. He says:
Perhaps one of the clearest witnesses to the destructive potential of such ideologies is found in the “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Movement.“ The adverse experiences over the last ten years of secular-progressive professors who did not affirm the movement’s social orthodoxies serve as cautionary tales not only for the academy, but for the larger society as well.
In this video, Ellis converses with Dr. Walter Strickland, a professor at SEBTS. SEBTS has launched their kingdom diversity initiative which is no doubt an instantiation of the very thing Ellis is claiming to find problematic. Just look at how they numerize image bearers in their second stated goal: “Southeastern strives to raise historically underrepresented voices on campus by working to be comprised of 20% culturally diverse faculty, staff, and students, and 35% female by 2022.” If this isn’t a product of the “diversity, equity, and inclusion movement,” I don’t know what is. Throw in Sam Alberry and Revoice and it’s all there.
Ellis needs to condemn these particular instances of the concepts he’s claiming to decry as fundamentally un-Christian approaches to things like anthropology, ecclesiology, etc. Only then will we be able to discern the heartbeat behind his ministry.
IV. Our Fallen World
I’m not entirely sure what Ellis is getting at here, so maybe some more clarification is needed. For example, he says:
Yet the genuine people of God have had life-giving responses displaying God’s intent for humanity based on His principles in order to indict the surrounding culture. God leaves such a witness through His people so that those in the surrounding community might “taste and see that the Lord is good.”
What “surrounding culture” is he talking about? Is he talking about power structures controlled by the dominant group (a Marxist approach proffered by the social gospel), or is he talking about the culture of sin, death, and the devil which are rifely found throughout our world regardless of race, economic status, etc., all of which must be fought by the prescribed means of grace in Scripture (emphasis on prescribed)?
Moreover, for Ellis, what constitutes a totalitarian regime? I know he mentions men like Mao and Pol—and other low-hanging fruit—but does he also consider the “dominant group” a totalitarian regime as he seemed to imply in the linked video? If he does, he’s walking in the very footsteps of a man he’s claiming to denounce, Dr. James Cone—author of the black liberation theology.
V. Language Usage
I have more problems with this point than I have the time to set down in writing, but I found it interesting that Ellis writes:
By way of another example, categories of dominance and sub-dominance are used by sociologists who are not Marxists. Language usage is not evidence of ideological affirmation.
Two questions arise here:
The first: Can the categories of dominance/sub-dominance help the church whatsoever? Are they biblical categories, or categories consistent with the biblical data? Earlier on this point, he pulls out the biblical language of oppressor/oppressed and justice; are we to understand these terms to be aligned with their secular counterparts, dominance/non-dominance? Is it automatically wrong for one group to dominate another group, socially speaking, economically? Is the church to see dominance in all its forms as sin? These are the questions Ellis is burdened to answer if he wants people to understand what he means.
The second: If language usage isn’t necessarily evidence of ideological affirmation, then why has Ellis failed to carefully define the biblical language he has used throughout his article? Language like kingdom agenda, oppression, justice, gospel implications, and anthropology need definitions just like the terms in question need definitions. I agree with Ellis that language needs to be defined because of the ever-lurking danger of equivocation, but he fails to uphold this principle in an article meant to clarify.
VI. Differentiating Disciplines
Ellis makes a valid point here that a lot of younger students are failing to rightly differentiate between various academic disciplines, like theology and sociology for example. But then he says this:
In hindsight, during the closing years of the 20th Century it was much safer than it is today to use theological-anthropological terms when writing about social issues. Due to the infiltration of CRT and today’s Intersectionality into the academy, the risk of my ideas being misappropriated and misapplied by both supporters and detractors is far greater today than it was back then.
Apparently, denouncing the practice of appropriating certain terms within Christian thought is a symptom of an inability to distinguish between disciplines. Ellis cites the later 20th century as a period during which it was safer to use extra-biblical terminology that originated in the field of sociology. But, was that because people were better at distinguishing disciplines, or was that because liberalism and neo-orthodoxy was the “cool theology” of the day?
Of course it was permissible to appropriate biblical language into social contexts or vice versa during critical times. And when I say critical times I mean the times preceding an almost 2000-church-exodus from the SBC in 1990 which resulted in the formation of a new liberal denomination called the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.
VII. Looking Ahead
Toward the end of the article he says:
By God’s grace, I will continue to refine my own feeble efforts to discover and uncover ways to express the reality of destructive social systems and to present the remedy that’s found only in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Some will no doubt parse and critique the life out of this statement against all ideologies that set themselves up in opposition to the Gospel. So be it. That is the nature and cost of a public witness.
What “social systems” is he talking about? In the video I’ve linked here, he talks about systems that benefit the dominant group more than the sub-dominant group. Is that a destructive social system against which the church must fight according to Ellis? If so, Ellis has appropriated text-book critical theory into his approach—an ungodly synthesis, to be sure. If that’s not what Ellis is doing, perhaps he could clarify further on this point.
Unfortunately, Ellis ends the article by apparently shaming those who (like me) want to “test all things (1 Thess. 5:21),” and who want to correct public errors publicly (2 Tim. 2:25). Because of the way he concludes his article, many of Ellis’ readers are bound to see any kind of public response as an act of aggression, or an attempt to weaken the body of Christ. Some may respond to Ellis with that intent, but know certainly that this is not the intent of everyone who responds, even of those who respond with zeal and firmness.
We cannot let virtue signalling hinder productive discussion and debate in the body of Christ— something this concluding disclaimer no doubt threatens to do.
This is, if I may be so bold, a cowardly way to end an article that raises a lot of important questions, more questions, in fact, than it answers.
I will end my article in a very different way.
Carl Ellis, if you see my article as flawed—as a detour from the truth of God’s Word—please respond for the sake of our readers. I hope someone out there picks this article apart if it is indeed contrary to the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. I hope someone cares enough about our audiences to correct any errors found in our work.
by Josh Sommer | Jan 23, 2020 | Biblical Theology, Public Theology
There’s a difference between pastoral theology and public theology. Recent demands, however, would lead one to think otherwise.
The recent phenomenon of the “address public content privately” principle has become the go-to response to criticisms of American evangelicalism and its leaders. Power players such as the SBC and TGC are perhaps the greatest apologists for this principle. It affords them the opportunity to minimize the attention drawn to possible errors, and carves out room for the victimhood of professors and other leaders and makes provision for academic negligence. This amounts to an effort to keep the discussion underground. It amounts to a nil rate of productivity, the suppression of truth, and the willful malnourishment of fellow Christians who might benefit from said discussion.
Before I jump into relevant texts, I want to unequivocally state that academics in a teaching position do not have the luxury of public theological error without consequence—a kind of public theology with no strings attached. What I mean by this is that a teacher who teaches something publicly ought to be more than willing to own their public error publicly. This is basic academic decorum, a minimum requirement for all who accept the sacred opportunity to teach theology. Personally, if I publish error, I expect to be corrected publicly. If I’m being honest, the prospect of public invalidation keeps me on my toes. At the very least, if there are those who disagree with me, I most certainly expect public responses and, hopefully, fruitful public dialogue.
The Example of Apollos
Apollos is introduced to us in Acts 18:24 as a man who was mighty in the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, was fervent in spirit, and he taught accurately the things of the Lord (v. 25). Thanks to God’s grace through Aquila and Priscilla, he understood the way of God “more accurately (v. 26).” In v. 27, when Apollos arrived in Achaia, he “greatly helped those who believed through grace.” How did he help his fellow believers? He “vigorously refuted the Jews publicly, showing from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ (v. 28).”
There are three observations we need to make here.
First, godly refutation is a great help to God’s people. Those who downplay the need to refute bad ideas do not understand this biblical principle which evidences itself all over the pages of Scripture (Prov. 17:10; 19:25; Is. 1:17; Tit. 2:15).
Second, this refutation was a great help precisely because it was public! God’s people benefitted from Apollos’ exchange with the Jews because it was a public exchange with men who were no doubt also teaching publicly (as the Jewish rabbi were prone to do). Imagine if another Christian wrote to Apollos, questioning, “Did you first speak to those Jews privately? Huh? Huh?!” Such a thing would be inconceivable to the rhetorically trained first century mind.
Third, Apollos’ refutation was derived straight from the Word of God. It didn’t consist of man-made doctrine, sayings, or preferences. His responses weren’t couched primarily within the faculty of emotion, but came to him as he put his regenerate reason to work for the glory of God. He wasn’t holding age, experience, or intellect over his interlocutors as an authority (as some have done recently). Rather, he was reasoning from the Scriptures, publicly, for the benefit of God’s people. Apollos was a noble man, a man’s man, who operated according to the Scriptures, that is, with integrity and transparency.
The Example of Paul
In case the objection comes, “But Apollos was interacting with unbelievers!” I want to be clear that public responses to public content or error is the biblical norm, whether that be among believers or unbelievers. The exception to the rule is the inner operations of the local church, especially when in comes to church discipline (Matt. 18). I’m not talking about the intramural business of any given local church. I’m talking about public theology. The disciplinary procedure of Matthew 18 cannot apply to extramural discussion because Matthew 18:17 necessarily places the procedure within the context of the local church.
Moreover, Paul sets a precedent for addressing erring believers in public. Galatians 2:11-14a says:
Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all…
Peter, the apostle, was in error. How did Paul address Peter’s error? He opposed Peter. Not only did Paul address Peter in person, an ideal form of communication, but he opposed him before an audience! Now, the reason Paul opposed Peter in front of everyone is not expressly stated, but I believe Paul’s desire was to correct Peter for the edification of those over whom Peter had the most influence.
In fact, Paul does explicitly disclose his purpose behind public interaction when he writes to Timothy, “Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear (1 Tim. 5:20).” Again, correction ought to be done in public for the benefit of all. To drive that interaction underground is selfish, cowardly, and rips away any possible way other Christians might benefit from the discussion. To drive public issues under ground is to play a card Roman Catholicism has been playing for hundreds of years: The more ignorant the public, the less power they have.
Some have attempted to use 1 Timothy 5:1 as a tool to silence those who address public issues publicly, especially when it comes to younger men attempting to refute the ideas of older men (cf. 1 Tim. 4:12). Whilst I fully affirm that our rebukes ought to be seasoned with the spice of humility, the salt of truth ought to be tasted throughout. In 1 Timothy 5:1, Paul isn’t telling Timothy to never rebuke an older man. If that’s what he was saying, he’d be contradicting what he writes later on in v. 20. Moreover, the terms used are different.
In v. 20, a different Greek term is used for rebuke (ἐπιπλήσσω) than that which is used in v. 1 (ἐλέγχω). There’s a right way to rebuke (v. 20), and a wrong way to rebuke (v. 1). Using different terminology is Paul’s way of making a distinction. Interestingly, the context of right rebuke seems to be public.
Conclusion
Apollos, a man who was mighty in the Scriptures, publicly refuted the Jews. Paul publicly rebuked his friend, brother, and fellow apostle in front of impressionable onlookers. Moreover, Paul encourages young Timothy to publicly rebuke those who are in sin.
In the current dialogue climate, many are either ignorant or have outrightly rejected the biblical principle of public theology in public. The exhortation from prominent evangelical leadership for critics of their public content to go underground by writing letters and making phone calls (both of which have already been attempted by many) is simply not a biblical approach to public discussion. Rather, the biblical principle seems to suggest that public examples and public content, whether written or spoken, are subject to the public criticisms of fellow believers so long as those fellow believers have a mind to edify the body of Christ rather than simply tear down a personality or argue for argument’s sake.
Therefore, I conclude that the principle of “address public content privately” is a false if not morally atrocious principle designed by men (not God) to silence opposition and provide an excuse for willful academic disingenuity or irresponsibility.
