Standing for the Truth

Some of the people I greatly respect are those who stood for the truth of God in difficult times. For instance, there was Athanasius, who stood for the truth of the deity of Christ when it was under serious attack. The Council of Nicaea had taken the stand that Jesus Christ was indeed God come in the flesh, but the Emperor Constantine was indifferent, and one of his sons, Constantius, (the one who ultimately outlived his brothers to become sole emperor) was positively hostile and persecuted those who held to the position that Christ was God. Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria, who was seen as the representative of orthodoxy, was sent into exile multiple times, being recalled only to be sent into exile again, as imperial policy changed. But Athanasius stood firm, and the truth of God ultimately triumphed. There was also Martin Luther, who stood firm for the truth that we are declared just in the sight of God through faith in Christ. And he stood firm against pope and emperor at the risk of his life (many who followed him gave their lives) to maintain this truth. Church history is full of those, like Athanasius and Luther, who maintained their principles in defiance of opposition and danger.

We should respect such men and, if necessary, imitate them. But there is a danger. It is possible for someone to take the attitude they are standing for the truth when they are standing for some relatively unimportant detail. There are matters of truth that need to be stood for. But there is the danger of taking some personal opinion on a minor point and making it something earth-shattering. How do we know what to stand for? We should start by taking our stand on the broad emphases of Scripture. If Scripture is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16,17; John 17:17; 2 Peter 1:20,21), we need to trust it, not only as our guide to what is true, but as to what is important. Many times the Scriptures clearly state what the important issues are, and those are what we should emphasize (Deuteronomy 13:1-3; 1 John 4:1-3; Galatians 1:8,9). Also, we need to realize that we are sinners (Romans 3:23; Jeremiah 17:9; 1 John 1:8-10) and do not always know all the answers (1 Corinthians 3:18; 8:1-3; Romans 11:33). This does not mean we should adopt the modern false humility of claiming not to know anything. We are commanded to stand for God's truth, though with love and gentleness (1 Peter 3:15; 2 Timothy 2:24-26; Ephesians 4:14-16). But this must be God's truth, not every incidental opinion we happen to hold. It is good to respect and wish to imitate those who have stood for and do stand for God's truth. But we need to be sure that what we are standing for genuinely qualifies for this.

Wipe Away Every Tear - Revelation 21:3-5

What Needs Revived?

Some things that divide Christians are not obvious ones found in doctrinal statements but more subtle mindsets that work behind the scenes. One such issue was the shift from traditional Protestantism to Revivalism. This was not simply a shift from carnality to spirituality, but between two ways of viewing spirituality.

This change resulted from a shift in the character of western society. There was a movement from an avowedly Christian society to a superficially Christian, secular society. Under the older situation the church was seen as a normal fixture of the society, and the majority of the nation were seen as part of it. Therefore, it saw its main function as indoctrinating those under its care in the truth of God and incorporating them into the organizational church. Under this system there existed those with a genuine faith in Christ and a desire to serve Him. But others grew up in the church, learning its teachings and rituals by rote, without saving faith. Also, there was a tendency for a church so deeply imbedded in society to become conformed to the world. But the biggest problem was that as society secularized, there was a departure from Biblical Christianity, which left many with, at best, a nominal adherence to it. They were left with a crowd to convert, rather than a congregation to instruct.

To meet this challenge there was a shift away from an emphasis on corporate identity to one of individual response. This emphasized people's inner experiences, both in terms of conversion and of spiritual growth. I am convinced that this was a shift that was necessary to deal with the superficial Christianity of the day. The problem was that, like many originally necessary corrections, it proceeded too far in the opposite direction. It frequently overemphasized experience and individualistic piety over established teaching and corporate commitment. It often resulted in concentrating on subjective experience for reassurance of one's salvation or spirituality. This frequently led to false self-confidence or perpetual doubting. It is tempting to say we need a position in the middle (and I believe, in some sense, this is right), but this can lead to a tame mediocrity with neither intellectual vigor nor committed passion.

I am convinced that the answer is the Cross. Understanding that God became a man (John 1:1-18; Philippians 2:5-11; Hebrews 2:9,10) to pay the price for sins (1 Peter 2:24-25; Colossians 2:13,14; Romans 5:8), is a profound intellectual concept with deep implications. It also calls for a community to preserve it and to instruct and establish people in it (Ephesians 4:11-16; 1 Corinthians 12:12-27; Colossians 2:19). But it also calls for an individual response of faith (Romans 4:4,5; Ephesians 2:8,9: 1 John 5:11-13) and obedience (Titus 2:11-14; 1 John 4:19; 2 Corinthians 5:14,15). This opposes the idea that it is adequate simply to be part of the right group or to go through the motions of worshiping God (Matthew 7:20-23: Malachi 1:10; Romans 9:6). It is focused on Christ that we find the right balance.

The How-To Syndrome

One of the common features of our culture is the abundance of how-to and self-help information available. Books on such subjects form large shelves in bookstores and libraries. These also are prominent in Christians circles. The impression is often given that it is impossible to have a romantic relationship, raise children, have a career, or, in the Christian context, grow in Christ or run a church without detailed examination of such material to make sure we are doing it the right way. It is amazing how previous generations have been able to manage such things without these detailed instructions.

But I am convinced that in many cases this creates more problems than it solves. We are given the impression that if we just follow the advice that is given, we can have a perfect marriage, perfect children, perfect career, perfect spiritual life, and perfect church. But in the real world it does not work that way. This can end up putting the individual on a treadmill of frustration, trying to achieve these goals. Or if someone manages to convince themselves they have reached the ideal and have everything under control, they can become complacent and be blindsided by problems when they come. Also, if someone else is involved, we can end up pressuring them to follow the instructions we believe will make the relationship reach our expectations. If they refuse or they try and fail, from our perspective, to make the grade, this can result in major problems in the relationship. Therefore, we can destroy a relationship by trying too hard to improve it.  There is a general problem here that when we trust in our own abilities and ideas (even if those ideas originally came from another human being) rather then trusting in God, we are setting ourselves up for failure (Psalms 127:1,2; Proverbs 3:5,6; Isaiah 31:1).

Based on Scripture, the most important thing is being saved by God from our sins, and this is something He does and we obtain through faith in Him (Romans 3:21-31; 4:1-8; Ephesians 2:8,9). Now as a result of this, we are called to obey Him (Romans 12:1,2; Ephesians 2:10; Titus 2:11-14), but God promises to work in us to change us into who He wants us to be (2 Corinthians 3:18; Philippians 2:13; Colossians 1:29). In all the aspects of our lives we can expect problems (John 16:33; Acts 14:22; 1 Peter 4:12,13), but we can trust God to ultimately bring us through them (Romans 8:28-39; 2 Corinthians 2:14; 4:17,18). Also, perhaps a certain amount of common-sense recognition of the limitations of what we can expect in the real world can be helpful here. Now I am not saying you should throw out all your self-help books. Some of them can have useful information if put in the right context. But we need to put them in perspective. After all, people did these things for many generations before such books came along.

Keeping the Rules

How many rules do we need? There are those who seem to feel that those who live with the most rules are the most spiritual. But there are others who criticize everyone who has more rules then they do (however many or few that may be) as a legalist. What is the right answer? Now we are not saved by keeping the rules (Romans 3:19,20; Galatians 2:21; Titus 3:5,6), but by faith in Christ (Romans 4:4,5; Ephesians 2:8,9; John 3:16-18). Therefore, our motivation for obedience is love of God for what He has done for us (1 John 4:19; 2 Corinthians 5:14,15; Romans 12:1,2). Further, we are unable to keep the rules on our own (John 15:5; Romans 7:18; 8:8), but only through God's working in us (2 Corinthians 3:18; Philippians 2:13; Colossians 1:29). But we are still left with the question of more rules versus fewer rules.

The Biblical emphasis does not seem to be on more or fewer rules, but on the right rules (Deuteronomy  4:2; Revelation 22:18,19; Proverbs 30:5,6). While we are warned against thinking it is all right simply to ignore God's standards (Galatians 5:13; Romans 6:15-23; Matthew 5:17-20), we are also warned against inventing new rules to try to show we are more holy than others who do not have such rules (Colossians 2:20-23; Matthew 15:1-9; Luke 14:1-6). Underlying this is an attitude of trying to please God by doing what He actually wants us to do. Not trying to cut corners and see what we can get away with or showing that we are better than others by having more rules then they do.

Also, the emphasis in Scripture is not on a checklist of external rules, but on principles and the attitude of the heart (Matthew 15:10-20; 5:21-48; John 4:20-24), the ultimate principle being that of love (Matthew 22:37-40; Romans 13:8-10; James 2:8). Now there are commands that are cut-and-dried: this is precisely what God wants, and if you do not do it you are wrong.  But there are other cases where we need to apply the broad principles of Scripture to the specific situation. Far from releasing us to do whatever we want, we need to deal with the complicated issues of considering our weaknesses (1 Corinthians 10:12,13; 2 Timothy 2:22; 1 Timothy 6:11) and the effects our behavior might have on others (Romans 14:13-23; 1 Corinthians 9:19-23; 2 Thessalonians 3:7-9). This can lead to someone avoiding things that they consider acceptable for others. However, we should not use these principles to produce categorical rules to be imposed on others. Part of the problem is we are much more comfortable with black-and-white rules. They make it easier to judge ourselves and others. But we need to be black-and-white where God is black-and-white and to allow room for judgment where this is required. We need people who can think things through for themselves, rather then just blindly follow a rulebook.

But He Was Sincere

One common claim is that it does not matter what you believe as long as you are sincere. But does this make sense? If I jump off a cliff and sincerely believe I will not fall, I will still fall. If I know nothing about mechanics, but sincerely believe I can fix a car, will it necessarily work when I am done? Will an atomic bomb not work if I sincerely believe it will not? In the physical world, we realize that certain things are correct and other things are not and that it is possible to be sincerely wrong.

But what about the world of morality? If one man kills another, are we more likely to excuse him if he sincerely wanted to kill that man? Are we not more likely to see it as a mitigating circumstance if it was unintentional or done on the spur of the moment while he did not intend to do it beforehand? If a driver hits a pedestrian, are we mollified if we learn he sincerely meant to hit that pedestrian? Adolf Hitler seems to have been a very sincere individual; does that justify his actions?

Why, then, are we willing to take this idea, which makes no sense in any other situation and apply it to the worship of God? It is possible to imagine a God who does not care it you worship Him through chastity and respect for life or cult prostitution and the sacrifice of infants, but this does not seem obvious. It is conceivable to picture a God who does not care if you regard Him as perfectly holy and all powerful or as a hen-pecked husband who goes around seducing young women, but it does not appear inevitable this should be true. Certainly, this is not the God of the Bible (Isaiah 43:10,11; John 14:6; Acts 4:12). Also, such a God would be impossible to obey because anything you did could be construed as obedience to Him. How would you decide what to choose? And how would you sincerely believe this was the right thing if it could just as well be something else? This, when followed consistently, must lead to insincerity, because how can you be sincere about being and doing something if you think another position, sincerely held, would be just as good.  For what do we mean by sincerity if it does not mean believing that this particular view is true as opposed to some other view? The whole thing becomes a mind game that ends up justifying everyone except the person who holds it. Therefore, this viewpoint refutes itself.

All We Need Is Love?

There are those who would argue that the only moral standard is love. This viewpoint is particularly put forth by those who hold to situation ethics, but has since spread beyond it. The only standard of right and wrong is to do the loving thing in the situation. How does this fit in with Scripture?

There are  passages that state love is the sum of all the commandments of the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 22:37-40; Romans 13:8-10; Galatians 5:13,14). The question then comes: What is love? Now to  love is to sacrifice oneself for the good of another (1 John 4:8-10; John 15:13; Romans 5:6-8). With this Dr. Fletcher, the founder of situation ethics, agrees, as would others who hold his opinions. But the question that then must be asked is: What is good?  In many cases I suspect his answer is the same as that of utilitarianism, which is that good is what gives the largest amount of pleasure. It is here Scripture and this viewpoint part company. In Scripture there is an absolute standard of good that supersedes our personal desires (Titus 3:3; James 1:14,15; 1 Peter 1:14). (This does not mean that all human desires are wrong, merely that they are not to be made the standard.) This disagreement arises from conflicting ideas about human nature. The Scriptures say that we, as human beings, are in rebellion against God, and our desires in many cases are the result of that rebellion (Romans 3:23; Jeremiah 17:9; Isaiah 64:6). While the modern idea is that people are basically good and therefore their desires are good unless they conflict with someone else's desires (or at least, who am I to question them). These lead to fundamentally different concepts of love.

The Biblical concept of love leads to a concept of commitment and responsibility and living according to principle. The modern cultural idea of love is a vague sentimental feeling that would not dream of questioning anyone or anything, except in the most extreme cases. A good illustration of this contrast is in the area of sexual morality. The Biblical standard in this area is one of lifetime commitment between a man and a woman, with responsibility being taken for the children produced by the union. The modern idea in this area is of following your impulses wherever they lead you, and that as long as what happens is between consenting adults it is okay, and that the children, if any, just have to learn to live with this. These are two totally different concepts of love, and if one is legitimate, the other is not. So when someone says the ultimate moral principle is love, you need to ask what they mean by love.