And the World is not Idle (1 John 2:15-17)

As a supplement to our Romans series, we go to 1 Jn 2.15-17 to look at a complicating factor in our sanctification, the temptation of the world. The world tempts us because it orients its system along the lines of our fallen natue, something we find very appealing. The shocking fact of this passage is that believers themselves can fail of their love for God because of their love for the world.

Today, Wayne Gretzky, unarguably the greatest hockey player ever, turns 50 years old. I remember watching him play pro hockey when he was just a teenager. He sure was fun to watch. And I know exactly where I was when THE TRADE came down. I’ll never forget that day. That night my wife and I stayed up till midnight listening to a sports talk radio show. We were traumatized! (Well, maybe that is a little overstated!)

I’m just going to give you a few links here, then make a point. Just notice, however, that in Canada, Wayne’s 50th is big news.

• Our local paper has a photo gallery (we don’t have a pro hockey team, but Wayne’s first training camp as an LA King was here).
• The Toronto Globe and Mail, sort of a national paper for Canada, has a story.
• Of course, The Sports Network, one of our Canadian sports channels, has multiple stories, but this is the big headline one for the day.
• Not to be outdone, Sportsnet, our other sports channel has their own versions. Here is a column by Mark Spector.
• And the National Post, our other national newspaper, has numerous articles, including this one on THE TRADE.

Now, what to make of all this?

Do we not, in our society, make gods of men (and a few women) whose only contribution to our society is fleeting entertainment?

Do we not, by so doing, make these gods because of the emotional highs we get from their performances?

Shouldn’t we, as Christians, put fences around our hearts and guard where we place our affections?

The Leavers: Young Doubters Exit the Church

More than in previous generations, 20- and 30- somethings are abandoning the faith. Why?

I am not sure the article succeeds in answering the question, but it comes close in these two paragraphs.

Again, the reasons for departing in each case were unique, but I realized that most leavers had been exposed to a superficial form of Christianity that effectively inoculated them against authentic faith. When sociologist Christian Smith and his fellow researchers examined the spiritual lives of American teenagers, they found most teens practicing a religion best called "Moralistic Therapeutic Deism," which casts God as a distant Creator who blesses people who are "good, nice, and fair." Its central goal is to help believers "be happy and feel good about oneself."

Where did teenagers learn this faith? Unfortunately, it’s one taught, implicitly and sometimes explicitly, at every age level in many churches. It’s in the air that many churchgoers breathe, from seeker-friendly worship services to low-commitment small groups. When this nave [sic] and coldly utilitarian view of God crashes on the hard rocks of reality, we shouldn’t be surprised to see people of any age walk away.

Sometimes those who are discontent with fundamentalism will point to young people abandoning the faith just as this article describes and will blame the departure on fundamentalism. The article shows how this can’t possibly be true. The phenomenon of ‘leavers’ is at least as prevalent in non-fundamentalist as fundamentalist churches.

Fundamentalism isn’t the issue, I am convinced. But the problem of "Moralistic Therapeutic Deism" isn’t exclusively a problem of seeker sensitive new age quasi-evangelical churches. It is a problem in materialistic fundamentalist churches as well.

The problem is that these ‘leavers’ have never been converted in the first place. The gospel didn’t reach them for some reason – ineffective churches or simply hardened hearts or both. Certainly such young people need to be seriously challenged by the true gospel before they ever contemplate leaving.

The article concludes with this paragraph:

One place to begin is by rethinking how we minister to those from youth to old age. There’s nothing wrong with pizza and video games, nor with seeker-sensitive services, nor with low-commitment small groups that introduce people to the Christian faith. But these cannot replace serious programs of discipleship and catechism. The temptation to wander from the faith is not a new one. The apostle Paul exhorted the church at Ephesus to strive to mature every believer, so that "we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes" (Eph. 4:14, ESV).

Of course, I wouldn’t say "there is nothing wrong with seeker-sensitive services, etc." But I have long thought we need to get serious about discipleship and call our people out of their mad love affair with the things of the world. We need people who are ready to ‘go everywhere preaching the Word’ and to ‘turn the world upside down’. We need serious, practical Christianity. We need revival.

And may it start in my own life! God keep me from ever implicitly living some kind of "Moralistic Therapeutic Deism". May Christ live in me.

[Again, no endorsement of the position and philosophy of Christianity Today. I link to it as a source of information and points of view.]

The question reveals, I think a faulty view of salvation and assurance of salvation. In light of our recent discussion of revivalism here, I thought the article asked an interesting question.

The whole idea of a “decision for Christ” is largely a revivalistic phenomenon. As the article says:

Much of American Protestantism has been influenced by revivalism, which places great emphasis on "making a decision for Christ" in a public, definitive way. These "moments of decision" often become the crucial evidence that one is saved. Other Protestant traditions, less influenced by revivalism (including some Reformed and Lutheran churches), may be content to leave the conversion experience unclearly identified, putting the focus on identification with the church. Both of these traditions have benefits, as well as potential problems.

In a recent comment, our e-friend Tracy makes a good point, I believe:

If I’m preaching to lost folks, I preach Christ crucified and call for them to close with Christ immediately and publicly. Before I close, I tell them if they have any questions, either they can come to the front at the invitation time or they can see me after the service. I always stress that Christ desires their immediate salvation. So I declare the gospel, spell out its terms, and call them to close with it.

I agree with that. We need to call folks to decisions.

But what about some who can’t remember the specifics of their decision? (Perhaps it was a long time ago, perhaps it was when they were very young, perhaps they remember bits, or perhaps they remember nothing at all.)

Sometimes we have the phenomenon of people (often young children) doubting their salvation ‘decision’. Did I really trust Christ then? Am I really saved? This can lead to multiple decisions – where someone suggests that there is nothing wrong with making sure of one’s salvation right now, so a new prayer is prayed and a new hope of assurance is formed based on a new decision. Or it can lead to someone assuring the concerned based on a past decision: Don’t you remember that prayer you prayed? Did you mean it then? Did God hear your prayer?

Both of these approaches, though well meaning, may lead to other problems. Some believers become very confused over multiple decisions and fail to progress because of a very unsettled mental state about their salvation. Others rely on their prayer as if it is almost a magic formula. As long as they ‘said the right words to God’, they are good to go.

The CT article concludes this way:

For those who question their salvation, the best evidence is not the memory of having raised a hand or prayed a prayer. Nor is it having been baptized or christened. The true test of the authentic work of God in one’s life is growth in Christ-like character, increased love for God and other people, and the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-25; James 2:18). A memorable conversion experience may serve as an important referent to God’s saving work in one’s life. But the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit in making a person more like Jesus is the clearest indicator that one has been made a new creation in Christ.

This is reasonably good advice, but I think more should be said. One searching question to ask is this: What are you relying on in order to have salvation? To put it another way, “If you were to stand before God right now and he were to ask you, ‘why should I let you into my heaven’, what would you say?” (To coin a phrase!!)

Why is this question relevant?

It is relevant because if one’s assurance is based on his works – his character, his visible love for God, his love for the brethren – is he relying on Christ or on his own works?

Or if one’s assurance is based on the prayer he prayed (the decision, or the memory of a decision), is he relying on the fact of having said the right words to God (a work) or is he relying on Christ?

For myself, I remember praying for salvation from sin on a certain occasion. My father told me that it came after weeks of spiritual turmoil and an inability on my part to understand that I was a sinner and needed to be saved, just like anybody else. (I wasn’t old enough to be that bad, or so I must have thought.) But at some point, I came to understand that I, even I, was a sinner and had no right to stand before God. I understood that I needed the work of Christ alone to save me from my sin, so I prayed to receive it.

Following that decision, I at times doubted my salvation. This usually came at points where I found myself under conviction for the presence of ongoing sin or under the periodic depressions associated with growing up.

Personally, I found assurance of salvation in two sources. First, in the promises of God in the Bible. The Bible says, “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Did I call? Yes. Then God’s promise is salvation. I depend on God’s word, not my own experience. Second, in answer to the question posed above, I would say I am trusting in the finished work of Christ alone, nothing else for my salvation. My answer to God’s hypothetical entrance examination is, “Jesus died for me.” I have no assurance based on my own experience. I have seen too many failures in my life and others to have much confidence in that route.

To answer the question of the CT article, “How can I know I’m a Christian if I can’t remember when I first responded to the gospel?” my answer is: Jesus Christ and the promises of God. Are you trusting in Jesus Christ alone to save you from sins? Then rest assured. The promises of God say you have eternal life.

What is godliness?

Godliness is a manner of life dominated by reverence for God that is displayed in a respect for other men that is visible to outside observers.

The word translated ‘godliness’ in the New Testament is eusebeia. According to Kittel, the root ‘seb-’ has the idea of ‘shrinking back’ or ‘falling back from’. With the prefix ‘eu-’ we could call it the ‘good shrinking back’. It is good because the term eusebeia speaks often of a proper attitude to the gods – piety – which is reflected in one’s conduct to men. Perjury, for example, is not godly. Caring for a dying father is godly. This conduct reflects an attitude of reverence towards deity and respect towards men.

In the New Testament, the term is occurs mostly in the pastoral epistles where its meaning is very parallel to Greek usage. It refers to conduct in relation to God, conduct that is no ascetic constraint but is positive expression of faith in the new life that now is and the life that is yet to come (1 Tim 4.7-8). This conduct is displayed by care of widowed mothers because such conduct pleases God (1 Tim 5.4). It is a life that is motivated by the Lord’s return, a life lived with ‘eternity in view’, since the things of this life are to be destroyed (2 Pt 3.10-11).

Godliness isn’t just private piety – it is visible piety. The gospel of grace teaches us that we are to live it out in this present world, before witnesses (Titus 2.11-12). It is to mark out the man of God, who, in contrast to the deceivers who trouble the church, is to pursue godliness rather than riches, content with his reward in heaven rather than profit on earth (1 Tim 6.1-12). It is that life to which God has provided the things pertaining to its essence and its conduct through the full knowledge of who called us by his own glory and excellence (2 Pt 1.3). God is excellent, the believer is called to excellence in this life.

In 1 Tim 2.2, the term is connected with the term ‘dignity’ (translated ‘honour’ in the KJV). Godliness speaks to the conduct of one’s life before God; dignity speaks to the quality of that life by virtue of a transformed inner man.

Godliness is given lip service today. For many people, if considered at all, it seems to simply mean, “having the right theology.” In the ancient world, some thought godliness merely meant keeping the rituals of religion, whether it be the Law of the Jews or the cultic practices of the Greeks. I am afraid many Christians today are quite satisfied with that kind of godliness today. “Get the form right, and I am all right.”

What we are after is a heart religion that reverences God and accordingly respects men. A heart religion that is no friend of the world, but a friend of God. Can it be that Christians who embrace the world and its ways are also friends of God? Are they godly?

It may be that godly Christians will come to differing applications on some specific matters of conduct, but the life of every godly Christian will be headed in the same direction: with fear toward God and respect towards men that outside observers can see – and will not confuse with worldliness.

Godliness is a manner of life dominated by reverence for God that is displayed in a respect for other men that is visible to outside observers.

Dr. Custer starts his article this way:

Many people use Scripture for their own purposes. I am referring to sincere Christians who use the Scriptures to reinforce their own private interpretations of the Bible and of life. Many of these people are very godly individuals. I know of preachers whose personal dedication to the Lord is unquestioned, but who have certain doctrines for which they are notorious. They plug these things as though they were the great truths of revelation, when they happen to be of private interpretation.

Most fundamentalists would say they have a handle on the idea of holiness. Dr. Custer points out there are approximately 600 references to the word ‘holiness’ in the Bible (leaving aside passages that don’t specifically use that word). How many of those passages would you say you have thoroughly studied? What kind of grasp do you have on holiness, according to the Scriptures?

Our culture is filled with media, as Dr. Custer points out. All kinds of noise blares at us, demanding our attention. We live fast paced lives. We are ‘Martha’ Christians. We need to learn to be ‘Mary’ Christians, and sit at the feet of Jesus.

Turn off our televisions and our computers. Turn off our ipods and iphones. “Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.” (Mt 11.29)

I can tell you that I was mightily convicted by this little article this evening

To my state-side friends that might not seem like much. To us it seems a great blessing to be able to gather together, to fellowship, to hear the Word, to play games, to sing our anthem, to know that the gospel message that calls men OUT from the world and all the taints of worldliness is not something we hold to quiet and alone in our little, struggling churches, wondering if we are the only ones. No, it is the great God and Saviour of our souls that unites us, our Lord Jesus Christ. It is his church and we are grateful to be a part of it.

Many who accuse fundamentalists of an over-emphasis on externals assume that fundamentalists believe that conformity to outward standards will produce holiness. I haven’t found that to be the case in my experience in numerous fundamentalist churches. What I have heard taught is essentially what Marty highlights in his post.

Here’s a sample:

In thinking about my own life, I can say that I need to be more holy, and that there are many things that distract me from that pursuit of holiness. I am sure that some of these things show up externally, in behaviours, and not simply in my innermost being where no one else can see.

I encourage you to read the whole thing.

The first volume also reveals the mind of a totally lost man. His conversion comes at the end of the first set of letters, but one has to say that he exhibits the pride and malice of a lost man in all his educated sophistication through the years prior to his conversion.

I’ll not debate the quality of his conversion, certainly he uses terms unfamiliar to us. It is quite clear that a real change took place in his life and he left us with many valuable works as a result.

In one of his letters, he makes an interesting observation about the pleasure of anger.

The pleasure of anger — the gnawing attraction which makes one return again and again to its theme — lies, I believe, in the fact that one feels entirely righteous oneself only when one is angry.

 Then the other person is pure black, and you are pure white. But in real life sanity always returns to break the dream. In fiction you can put absolutely all the right, with no snags or reservations, on the side of the hero (with whom you identify yourself) and all the wrong on the side of the villain. You thus revel in unearned self-righteousness, which wd. be vicious even if it were earned.¹

In light of my message last Sunday afternoon, “How Crucifying the Flesh produces the Fruit of the Spirit,” I thought this an apt quote. Too bad I didn’t see it in time to include it in my message.

The quote is from a letter to his ‘first friend’, Arthur Greeves on January 17, 1931. Lewis’ moment of conscious faith in Christ as the Son of God came on Sept 28, 1931. His conversion is described as a growth of understanding and acceptance of truth, coming first as an acceptance that there is a God, culminating with faith in Christ as described. So though he has not yet expressed conscious faith in Christ, I think he displays growing spiritual insight at this point.

What makes anger so delightful? The other person is all wrong, all black, and you are all right, all white. In effect, you become God, and are justified in your judgement of whomever it is that you rage against. It’s righteous wrath, not just righteous indignation!

It is this lust which makes violent movies so attractive. The movie develops sympathy for the lead character who may be a totally reprehensible individual, then leads you into a campaign of rage against his enemies, who are totally ‘evil’ because they oppose the ‘pure white’ hero.

The only antidote to this is humility of mind, is it not? The fruit of the Spirit which only comes by repentance and faith (crucifying the flesh). We must confess our rage, our wrath, our clamour, our malice, our evil-speaking, and submit heart, soul, and mind to the judgement of the Spirit of God.

Perhaps in our fundamentalist wars we should take a break and think this one over.

1. The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis, Vol.1, Walter Hooper, ed., pp. 950-951.

First let’s look at the text itself:

Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

This is a quotation from Dt 8.3:

Deuteronomy 8:3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.

What is the point of the passage? It is possible for a NT quotation to be an application of an OT passage, not giving a new meaning exactly, but instead taking the general principle and applying it to a new situation. This doesn’t appear to be the case in this passage.

The situations are remarkably parallel. Consider:

1. The Jews spent 40 years in the wilderness; Jesus spent 40 days fasting in the wilderness.
2. The Jews were in the wilderness at the command of God; Jesus was in the wilderness having been driven there by the Spirit (Mk 1.12).
3. The Jews suffered lack in the wilderness at the hand of God; Jesus suffered lack by the will of God.
4. A major issue in the Jews relationship with God during this period was ‘where do we get food’; the issue with Jesus was ‘I am denying myself food’.

I think you will agree with me that the two passages are tightly connected by their contexts.

In the temptation, Satan takes it as a given that Jesus is the Son of God (‘If  you are the son’ – first class condition, assuming it to be a fact). The power of the temptation lies in Jesus’ hunger, just as it did with Israel in the wilderness.

In the wilderness, the men and women and their little children soon forgot the mighty power of God that delivered them from Egypt and began to complain against God – ‘why have you led us out here? there’s no food, no water, we’ll die!’ – they were accusing the good God of being something other than good. Their hunger, and especially, I think, the hunger of their little ones enraged them with fear against God.

In the case of Jesus, his hunger is used similarly to tempt him to act independently of God, to in effect say that God is not good or worth following. ‘Since you are God,’ the tempter says, ‘what’s with all this waiting around? You can feed yourself. You don’t need to wait on anyone. The Father isn’t doing anything about it, but you can … and you deserve it.’ (The temptation, by the way, is a powerful argument for the real humanity of Christ. If he were not human, the temptation would have no power – you try fasting for more than one day, see how you like it!)

Tom Constable says on this temptation: “God had intended Israel’s hunger in the wilderness to teach her that hearing and obeying God’s Word is the most important thing in life (Deut. 8:2–3). Israel demanded bread in the wilderness but died. Jesus forewent bread in submission to His Father’s will and lived.”¹

This gets us to the heart of Jesus’ reply. The point is that men must learn to depend in faith on what God says – everything God says, whether it makes sense or not.

From the human standpoint, does it make sense to go out into the wilderness on a 40 day fast? This is especially senseless when one lives in a civilized (relatively) area where plenty of food is available and no crisis demands such rigour.

Adam was unable to withstand temptation for more than a few minutes, it seems. Israel succumbed within the first few days of their journeyings (after what food they brought with them ran out). Jesus fasted forty days. And refused the tempter – he lived by the Word of God that sent him to the wilderness.

Now, Kent and others are arguing, Jesus is referring to every individual word (at least, that portion that had as yet been given). From this assertion, that Jesus is referring to every one of the words from Genesis to Malachi, Kent reasons that for them to live by every word of God, they would have to have those words available. Hence, he says, this assertion implies that God will always make his word available to his people.

A couple of things need to be said here:

1. Kent is using reason to argue a system here. The passage in no way says that God will make every word always available to men. This is a reasoned position, reasoned by man, not revealed by God.
2. The word that the Israelites were told to live by had not been written at the time. It was available only orally, not in any written form. When it became available in written form, how many copies were available to the average Israelite? Probably only one copy during the entire 40 years in the wilderness, kept by the priests in the Tabernacle. The Deuteronomy passage itself was not written until Moses spoke it, at the end of the 40 years.

So let’s consider the Word that the Israelites had to learn to live by in the wilderness. What was it? I think we can paraphrase it this way: “Follow Moses out of Egypt and go take the land I promised your fathers.”

What word was Jesus living by in the wilderness of temptation? This word: “Go out into the wilderness until such time as I call thee.” The Spirit drove him out into the wilderness, remember. Do you think Jesus went out there with a backpack full of scrolls? Do you think he’s thinking, “Man, the Spirit wants me out in the wilderness, I better pack Genesis to Malachi so I won’t die out there. Now where did I put Obadiah?” (I speak as a fool!)

No, Jesus knows he is in the wilderness by the Word of God. He knows he will not stay in the wilderness because he has his Father’s business to do, also something he knows by the Word of God. He has learned to obey the word, and will not be turned aside from it.

I suppose Kent may argue, “but the text says every word”. Yes it does. But that is a command for us to hear and heed. It is not a promise to us that God is going to always make every individual word available to us. Jesus didn’t have every individual written Word available to him in the wilderness. But he was there by the Word, under the Word, committed to the Word and completely dependent on the Word.

May we all have such a trust in God’s Word that we never give in to any temptation to doubt what God says to us.

1. Tom Constable, Tom Constable’s Expository Notes on the Bible, Mt 4:3 (Galaxie Software, 2003; 2003).