Benjamin Morrison is a missionary in Ukraine and the pastor of Calvary Chapel Svitlovodsk in Central Ukraine.

Ben is also a leader with City to City in Europe and Ukraine.

To support Ben and the ministry he is doing, visit bit.ly/give2ukraine

Visit the Theology for the People blog at nickcady.org to read articles, suggest topics, or ask questions.

With war raging between Russia and Ukraine, we wanted to take a moment and connect with a pastor in the thick of it. Friend of the show and CGN pastor Benjamin Morrison is currently doing ministry in the midst of a war zone… and he has a ton of perspective to offer us.

We cover things like:

• What is God doing in Ukraine?
• How is the Church operating?
• How can we pray for the mental health of the pastors on the ground floor?
• How can we in the states help?
• What are the motives of Putin?
• How does Putin’s vision clash with the Kingdom of God?
• Can we trust the media in the midst of war?

Note from Aaron: In this episode towards the 2nd half, we discuss some of the geopolitical issues at play. I am a novice in these things, and I tend to approach things from a “Kingdom of God lens” as much as possible. That said, I acknowledge some of what I say in this episode could be said in ignorance, especially as we are discussing some of the various theories out there sent in by our friends on social media. Please bear with me (and feel free to reach out if you have something to add to the discussion!)

That said, I truly agree with the words of Jon Tyson:

“The real conspiracy is satanic and it’s goal is to get you to focus on ‘global meta whatevers’ that you can do almost nothing about and neglect the place of prayer, the word, and sacrificial love of neighbor.”

I encourage all listeners, no matter their political lens, to really consider what Benjamin is saying, as a pastor and brother in Christ on the ground floor of this war. He offers a lot of wisdom for us to consider, and has proven his focus is on the advances of the light of the Gospel into the darkest places.

—–

LINKS

Support Benjamin’s Ministry in Ukraine

Ben’s Facebook – updates

CGN Relief Fund

GoodLion Episode: Warnings About Progressive Christianity

Thanks to air raid sirens, neighbors and refugees are hearing more about the gospel than ever.

We are now a full week into open war with Russia. Of course, Russia has been warring against Ukraine since 2014, but this is an unprecedented phase. Still, it’s amazing how quickly one gets used to the mundane realities of war.

On day one, the news of other cities being bombed caused great anxiety in the city of Svitlovodsk, where my family and I live. Of course, the fact that the news woke us up before dawn and was very unexpected made it much worse. The intent to cause panic seemed planned.

Now, on day seven, the adrenaline has worn off. We are used to the 8 p.m. curfew and sitting in a dark apartment at night. We find ourselves ignoring some of the air raid sirens—especially the ones in the middle of the night, since we’re so exhausted. We’ve also learned that not every siren means a bomb might drop on our heads.

But whenever we do head to the bomb shelter, my family and I take the opportunity to share the hope of Christ with our neighbors.

CONTINUE READING

^{Image: Efrem Lukatsky / AP Images: “People gather in the Kyiv subway, using it as a bomb shelter.”
Originally Published on Christianity Today}

Wars and Weddings

This morning I woke up feeling like a truck had run over me. The warnings the night before that our dam might be a target for bombing certainly didn’t help me sleep well. Plus, all the stress the day before—and way too much coffee, if we’re being honest—did not make for a great combo. For many fellow ministers I’ve spoken with here, we are all feeling a lot of exhaustion, but we press forward believing that Christ has put us here for this moment. I dragged myself out of bed and headed off for a wedding.

I decided to walk from our house to our church building since we’re trying to conserve fuel. As I was nearing our building, everyone on the street froze and looked up. It was the sound of fighter jets zipping overhead. No one was sure whose they were, but we assume they were ours, as there were no explosions to follow. After a moment’s pause, everyone continued on.

You may be thinking: “A wedding? In the middle of a war? That doesn’t make sense!” But during war is when it makes the most sense. Because, first, what better reminder that even war cannot stamp out love. And second, what better way to say that we serve a higher King and have a deeper joy than to rejoice in the midst of chaos? The light is not afraid of the darkness; it dispels the darkness. The fact is, this now newlywed couple, Andrey and Nadya, are refugees from Kyiv—just a couple of the already nearly 1,000 refugees in our city.

Nadya had been a member of our church for many years but moved to Kyiv a couple years ago. She met Andrey there and they were planning to be married today in Kyiv. But the bombing in Kyiv that began on Thursday forced them to head to Svitlovodsk. And while the pastor who was supposed to marry them in Kyiv (a good friend of mine) didn’t get to do the wedding, it was a joy for me to perform the ceremony.

On my walk home, a van pulled up about a block from our apt., and three Ukrainian soldiers with automatic weapons jumped out. They took off running in the same direction and proceeded to canvas the area. It seems likely there were/are groups of covert Russian soldiers looking for targets in our city. We continue to pray that God would strengthen the hands of our brave soldiers. After arriving home and taking a short nap, I was feeling a lot better.

Today we also began gathering info and making contacts to help the hundreds and soon to be thousands of refugees in our city. We connected with a couple local businessmen (who are also Christians) and began a partnership to help care for these suffering people.

Thanks to the generosity of many of you, we were already able to purchase 1.5 tons of flour to bake bread for all of these refugees. This is only the beginning of the needs that we’ll be facing in the coming days, weeks and beyond. Those of you who would like to donate towards this can do so using the button below.

So far, the evening here has been calm. I spoke on an Instagram live stream about the situation here in Ukraine for a group of Brazilian leaders. It was then on to the sermon. I had originally not been scheduled to preach tomorrow, but not much in the last three days has gone according to my plans. As a friend and ex-missionary recently reminded me, “The heart of man plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps.” I’ll be sharing about David and Goliath tomorrow—seems appropriate.

Our new nightly routine includes making sure our things are at the ready in case we need to run to the bomb shelter in our building. The part that remains the same is praying. Please join us in prayer for:

Prayer Requests:

• The political will for world leaders to make the bold steps necessary to defeat Putin quickly (e.g., cutting Russia off from SWIFT). Moreover, pray for God to supernaturally crush this evil and injustice.

• Pray for many in these difficult days to find their hope and strength in Christ.

• Pray for God’s provision to serve the millions of refugees in neighboring countries as well as the local refugees here in Ukraine.

• Pray for strength and encouragement for all those pastors and ministers in Ukraine who are pouring themselves out to bring Christ to those in need.

How to Support

Make a donation to our ministry in Ukraine

If you would prefer to donate via check, please make it out to:

“Horizon Ministries”

Leave the memo line on the check blank with a separate note enclosed: “for the Morrisons”.

Send to:

Horizon Ministries
7702 Indian Lake rd.
Indianapolis, IN 46236

All donations are tax-deductible and 100% of your donation goes to us!

On this week’s episode, Aaron sits down with Pastor Benjamin Morrison to discuss two articles he wrote for CalvaryChapel.com about the issue of systemic racism. The articles received some pushback due to the tense feelings many people have in this moment around the topic, and so Aaron and Ben take time to flesh out a lot of the common concerns and issues that revolve around the term. It’s a lengthy yet interesting discussion that gets to the heart of the issue and how Christians can think critically about it.

––––
Benjamin Morrison is the planter and lead pastor of Calvary Chapel Svitlovodsk, Ukraine. He is also the Coordinator for City to City Ukraine and serves as Training Coordinator for City to City Europe.

You can read Ben’s article’s here:

• PELAGIAN RACISM: A LESSON FROM CHURCH HISTORY

• PELAGIAN RACISM PART 2: WILL PREACHING THE GOSPEL FIX SYSTEMIC RACISM?

––––

The GoodLion podcast is a show by Aaron Salvato and Brian Higgins, the founders of CGN’s GoodLion Podcast Network. Each episode, their goal is to ask hard questions, push past easy answers and always look to Jesus, the God who is not safe but is very good. Visit GoodLion.io.

In my previous article, I laid out how the concept of systemic racism is a consequence not of “cultural Marxism,” but of the biblical understanding of sin. We ended with the question of how to move forward beyond personal prayer and repentance. A frequent sentiment I’ve heard during the current discussion on racism goes like this: “Even if there is systemic racism, only the Gospel can change hearts. Therefore, we should just focus on preaching the Gospel and not concern ourselves with questions of systemic racism.” In this article I hope to respond to this position and show that, while the Gospel is the ultimate answer, it is the Gospel itself which calls us to do more than ignore injustice and hope that individual oppressors come to Christ.

The Only Power to Change Hearts

To begin, it’s worth pointing out the core of truth in the position we are examining. The Gospel truly is the only thing that can deal with the root of racism. Racism is one of many sinful attempts at building an identity for ourselves apart from Christ. It is an attempt to prove one’s worth apart from the cross, based on one’s ethnicity instead. As with all such sinful attempts, it inflicts damage on both the one seeking to prove their worth and on those whom he or she must sacrifice to do so.

Only the Gospel says that we are loved and valuable, not because of our race, social status, professional success, academic accolades, etc., but as a gift of sheer grace. The idol of race asks us to sacrifice the dignity of other ethnicities to prove our own worth. But in the Gospel, God sacrifices his own dignity on the cross to prove our worth. When that truth of being deeply loved by grace reaches our hearts, it undoes the need to prove ourselves by denying the worth of others. It kills both the pride and the fear that are at the real root of racism—and at the root of any sin.

This is all true and needs to be affirmed. The only hope for deep heart transformation is the Gospel. But does that mean we need to focus only on preaching the Gospel to individuals and ignore any questions of systemic change?

The Scope of Gospel Transformation

A question that will help us answer this is the following: what is God’s intended scope of Gospel transformation? Modern western Evangelicalism has sometimes been accused of shrinking the Gospel to be only about personal forgiveness that lets us escape the world after we die. Sadly, this accusation is not without grounds. But the biblical Gospel is about more than just individual forgiveness. Its final scope is nothing less than the restoration of the universe under the lordship of Jesus.

Christ came announcing the coming of a Kingdom. Forgiveness is what allows us to take part in that Kingdom, but forgiveness alone is not the ultimate goal. In the same way that sin is both individual and systemic, so Gospel transformation is both individual and systemic. It is the full biblical Gospel itself that demands we not content ourselves with individual transformation alone, but prayerfully labor for Gospel renewal in the world, beginning in our own churches.

An Underlying Assumption

There is an unspoken assumption in the suggestion to “just preach the Gospel” and ignore issues of systemic racism. The assumption is this: individuals shape society, but society does not shape individuals. The argument implies that only by seeing individuals changed piecemeal will society—maybe, eventually—be changed. Additionally, it suggests that if enough individuals are changed, society will change all by itself. Thus, societal change is a byproduct at best.

But this approach fails to take seriously the reality that not only do individuals shape culture, but culture shapes individuals. Surely we can see this realization behind the concern for our children to be raised with biblical values. Because culture is so key to shaping individuals, a true concern for individual hearts means we should also be concerned about the society which helps form them.

Moreover, even if every last person in a given society came to faith in Christ but no one dealt with the systemic changes necessary to reflect biblical values, the changes would be no more permanent than those individuals. The final chapters of Esther show just such an example. Even when the racist, genocidal Haman was removed, the evil system he had set in motion still needed to be dealt with directly. Systemic change is not automatic simply because individuals in that system have changed. Systemic change must be pursued directly if it is to be ubiquitous and enduring.

A Gospel Witness in Society

The suggestion to “just preach the Gospel” and ignore questions of systemic justice may seem right at first. After all, it seems to be lifting up the power of the Gospel—and who among us Christians would disagree with that! But there is another problem here.

First, the Gospel must always be accompanied by its fruits. While the Gospel must not be confused with its fruits, a Gospel without fruit is no Gospel at all. Therefore, when people suggest the preaching of a Gospel that does not bear as one of its consequences the fruit of racial justice and neighbor love, something is wrong. In fact, often the fruits of the Gospel act to draw people to the Gospel. Thus, a true concern for the Gospel to be lifted up in society must be concerned to show the beauty of the Gospel in all of its outflowing results.

Secondly, to argue that we must focus on the ultimate good (the Gospel) to the detriment of other real goods is a theological fallacy. We certainly don’t say, “Well, I’m no longer going to shower because I need to focus on preaching the Gospel.” No, we realize that regular hygiene is both good stewardship of our bodies and a very practical form of love to our neighbors—especially to their noses. If anything, practicing this simple good might aid us in promotion of the Gospel. How much more then if we seek to love our neighbors by promoting justice in society! A suggestion to preach the Gospel that cuts off that Gospel from its fruits and any other good smacks of Gnosticism in which God is unconcerned with this world.

A Consistent Approach

If you are among those who would be hesitant to tackle systemic racism, opting instead to simply “focus on preaching the Gospel,” ask yourself this: “Is my approach consistent?” For example, if you are content to ignore issues of systemic racism and “just preach the Gospel,” do you take the same approach with other issues in society—say, abortion? After all, even if abortion were outlawed, this would not “change anyone’s heart.” So why not ignore it and “just preach the Gospel”?

But many Christians are not content to merely hope that individuals inclined to get an abortion come to Christ and so change their minds. While that might represent the deepest kind of change, it does nothing to dismantle a system that promotes injustice against the unborn. Chances are, you want to preach the Gospel to individuals and work to reform the system. And that’s really the point: one approach does not contradict the other. We can and should be concerned about systemic justice as well as individual conversion.

It’s true that legislation cannot change hearts. That’s not its intent. Rather, its intent is to provide protections and order in society against abuses by those whose hearts are not yet changed. In the words of Paul, “the law is for the lawless” (1 Timothy 1:9). The argument to ignore systemic reform because it doesn’t change hearts actually ignores what the Bible says about the law. It is because hearts are not changed that they need systemic reform.

Policy changes cannot deal with the root issues that cause racism in individual hearts. That’s why we need to continue to preach the Gospel and specifically show how it deals with the idol of racism. But policy can make it less likely that people will act on sinful racist inclinations. At the same time, while legislation is not the same as God’s Law, where it aligns with God’s Law it can serve to convict and show the need for repentance. Ultimately, the choice to preach the Gospel or work to change systemic racism is a false one. Instead, we must preach the Gospel and work to change systemic racism because of the Gospel.

What Now?

My intent has not been to lay out any specific policy prescriptions in this article. I do not claim to be an expert in the intricacies of policy and how best to reform it. My concern in these articles has been to help us as Christians see the reality of systemic racism from a biblical standpoint. These articles will not give an answer to how we go about tackling systemic racism—a complex task to say the least. Rather, my hope has been to show that, in line with the Gospel and as a fruit of the full biblical Gospel, we must begin the work. We must lay aside unbiblical and inconsistent excuses and take seriously the cause of addressing systemic racism in society. In so doing, we will “adorn the doctrine of God our Savior” with the beautiful fruit of justice.

“I don’t hate black people, so I’m not part of the problem. Racism is bad, but it’s an individual sin that some people commit. I’m not one of those people, so why am I being held responsible for other people’s racism?” Since the beginning of the protests in the wake of George Floyd’s murder, I’ve seen variations of the above comment again and again, including from a number of white pastors. A common addition is an accusation of “cultural Marxism” whenever the idea of systemic racism is broached. It’s a valid question, and I hope my words might help to shed some light.

I know it’s hard to listen to positions that are not comfortable for us. Perhaps you’ve made comments similar to the one above. Perhaps you feel confused or even offended by all the talk of systemic racism. More specifically, maybe you’re put off by the idea that you are somehow complicit in systemic racism. After all, you love Jesus; you try to love everyone and hold no ill will against people of any color. Maybe you even have some friends who are black, Latino, etc. I hope to show in this article that systemic racism is not a Marxist invention, but rather a valid category based on the biblical doctrine of sin. And therefore it’s one we need to consider seriously.

A Church History Analogy

Let’s start with an analogy. Some readers will be familiar with the name Pelagius. For those who aren’t, Pelagius was a monk from the British isles who taught around the turn of the 5th century A.D. Pelagius is infamous for denying the doctrine of original sin. He taught that Adam’s sin led only to Adam’s personal fall. While that provided a bad example to the rest of humanity, each person is sinful only if they commit sins personally. In other words, Pelagius denied any kind of inherent or systemic sinfulness in mankind. Pelagius and his teaching were condemned as heretical at the ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D.

In contrast to Pelagius, the Bible teaches that sin is more than just our individual transgressions. It’s also a state into which we are born. It’s something inherently passed on to us by our ancestors. Sin is something inculcated into us by a fallen society before we’re even capable of conscious choice. Thus, it is accurate to say that sin, in the biblical view, is both individual and corporate—or systemic. We can see this relatively easily if we stop to consider an example.

A Sin-riddled System

Let’s consider a favorite sin of modern western society: materialism. Greed is part of the sin nature we’re born with. Those of us with children know this. No one has to “teach” a toddler to want more things or want what others have. It’s innate. At the same time, that child—and all of us—are born into a culture that quietly celebrates materialism. Even if we reject the brash motto of “greed is good,” we are still part of a system that pushes us towards greed in innumerable ways. Commercials and marketing add fuel to the fire to convince us that what will make us happy is more stuff.

Of course, we are skilled at self-justification—another effect of our sin nature. We tell ourselves that we’re not greedy. After all, we’re not stealing. We’re not neglecting our family and health to get rich—most of the time. We’re not taking part in ethically dubious schemes to accrue wealth at the expense of those with less. We just want a little more—and that seems reasonable, not greedy. John D. Rockefeller was purportedly interviewed once when he was literally the richest man in the history of the world. The interviewer asked him, “How much money is enough?” His answer is profound and somewhat convicting. He replied, “Just a little bit more.”

We are prone to deny our materialism because we’re not committing brazen, conscious acts of greed. But given the culture that we find ourselves in, and our inherent sinful inclination, the question we ought to be asking is, “How much greed is in my heart?” To deny its presence entirely is to admit that it has quite a firm hold on us. The truth is that we could do a similar analysis with any sin: lust, pride—or racism.

A Pelagian View of Racism

It seems that in the current discussion on systemic racism, a number of white Christians are committing a doctrinal error similar to Pelagius. Far from being a product of “cultural Marxism,” the systemic nature of racism proceeds from the systemic nature of sin itself. Few, if any, readers would argue with the conclusions of the Council of Ephesus that Pelagius was promoting a shallow, hyper-individualized, and unbiblical view of sin. And yet the question we should ask ourselves is: “Am I holding to a Pelagian view of racism?”

One fundamental mistake Pelagius made was relegating sin to only the realm of individual, conscious acts. While personal transgression is certainly part of the definition of sin, it is not the only part. Sin is much more pervasive. It goes much deeper, to the very fabric of our nature and society—just like racism.

Some current popular rhetoric tells us that, “No one is born a racist.” And yet, as with the example of greed, no one has to teach a toddler to look askance at someone of a different race and think, “That person doesn’t look like me—are they safe?” It is likely a rotten fruit of our inherent self-righteousness that the less like us someone seems, the more suspicious we are of that person.

Moreover, as with greed, we are all born into a culture that still promotes racism in numerous ways. This is evidenced in everything from policing practices¹ to wage disparity² to educational opportunities.³ The current push to confront racism openly in society is a start in the right direction, but it is not enough to undo centuries of egregious oppression of other humans based only on the color of their skin.

So while we might not be personally guilty of brazen, conscious acts of racism, that does not mean that we are not complicit in overall systemic racism. We are born fallen into a fallen system, which means there are myriad ways this inherent racism has affected us, and even many ways we participate in it. As with the example of greed, the question we ought to be asking ourselves is, “How much racism is in my heart?” To deny its presence entirely is a sign that it still has a firm hold on us.

How Should We Move Forward?

The first answer to this is personal prayer and repentance. We must ask the Lord to discover in our hearts the ways that we have absorbed and been complicit in racism, even if we would never think of ourselves as openly hostile to people of other races. We might be hesitant to do this. Perhaps we feel ashamed or afraid of the possibility that the Lord might reveal something. But the good news of the Gospel is that Christ took our shame on himself. It is because of grace that we can practice deep, sincere repentance without fear.

However, beyond dealing with our own hearts, how should Christians seek to address systemic racism? I’ve seen one line of reasoning almost as frequently as the denial of systemic racism: “Even if there is systemic racism, only the Gospel can change hearts. Therefore, we should focus on preaching the Gospel and not concern ourselves with addressing systemic racism.” I will deal with this line of reasoning in a follow-up article.

Notes:

¹Hall, A. V., Hall, E. V., & Perry, J. L. (2016). “Black and blue: Exploring racial bias and law enforcement in the killings of unarmed black male civilians” [Electronic version]. Retrieved June 27, 2020, from Cornell University, SHA School site.

²“Stark black–white divide in wages is widening further,” Economic Policy Institute, accessed June 27, 2020.

³Quinn, David M.. (2020). “Experimental Effects of ‘Achievement Gap’ News Reporting on Viewers’ Racial Stereotypes, Inequality Explanations, and Inequality Prioritization”. (EdWorkingPaper: 20-237). Retrieved from Annenberg Institute at Brown University.

Further Reading:

Alexander, M. (2020). The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness (Anniversary ed.). The New Press.

Schoenfeld, H. (2018). Building the Prison State: Race and the Politics of Mass Incarceration (Chicago Series in Law and Society) (1st ed.). University of Chicago Press.

Rothstein, R. (2018). The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America (Reprint ed.). Liveright.

Darby, D., & Rury, J. L. (2018). The Color of Mind: Why the Origins of the Achievement Gap Matter for Justice (History and Philosophy of Education Series) (1st ed.). University of Chicago Press.

_{While the following resources provide much excellent content, they are not written from a Christian perspective. Therefore, as always, read with readiness to learn, but weigh all things according to Scripture. CalvaryChapel.com does not necessarily endorse or agree with every message or perspective in the diverse resources listed. By providing these resources, we hope to help you stay informed of important events and conversations taking place in the world that are relevant to the Christian faith.}

There’s a joke that Christians here in Ukraine like to tell. One day, a pastor goes to visit a class in the children’s ministry at his church. He’s trying to break the ice with the small children and decides to play a guessing game. “Kids, who can tell me what lives in the forest, has pointy ears, a big bushy tail and climbs trees?” The children are awkwardly silent, afraid to answer. Then finally one brave, young boy raises his hand. “Well, I know the right answer is ‘Jesus’, but it sure sounds a lot like a squirrel.”

I lead preaching labs with City to City Ukraine. Our goal is to help preachers craft Gospel-centered sermons. Sometimes I run into a question much like the joke above. “What if all I see in the passage is a ‘squirrel’?” What if that’s all the writer saw? If Christ isn’t mentioned in the passage, aren’t we twisting the meaning of Scripture if we read Him in? Aren’t we supposed to be directed by the author’s original intent?” The desire to avoid reading something into the text that’s not there is a good one. We should be on guard against it. But is that what a Christ-centered approach to Scripture is doing? Or, on the contrary, do we have a biblical mandate to search for Christ in passages that don’t directly mention Him?

The Divine Authorship of Scripture

Whenever we approach a passage of Scripture, we always come at it with a specific set of assumptions. None of us is free from our own tradition or culture. But hopefully, we are open to refining our assumptions based on what we find in Scripture. For example, Scripture itself tells us that it is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16). So we approach Scripture with the understanding that it is not merely the words of men, but also the Word of God. New Testament scholar Vern Poythress writes, “Whether or not they were perfectly self-conscious about it, the human authors [of Scripture] intended that their words should be received as words of the Spirit.”¹ That means Scripture’s meaning is not defined solely by the human author’s intent. In fact, that approach is actually ignoring their intent, because they intended us to understand their words as being words from God. To agree with the intent of the human authors, we must recognize their words as more than the product of those authors.

One Passage, Two Authors

Every passage of Scripture has not one author, but two: the human author and the divine Author. So to understand the full meaning of a passage, we must ask not only what the human author’s original intent was, but also what God’s intent was. Some people argue that the intent of the human author and the divine Author must be identical. Walter Kaiser is one such scholar. He writes, “The Bible can have one and only one correct interpretation and that meaning must be determined by the human author’s [intent].”² Kaiser is trying to make sure that we don’t read our own ideas into the text. That’s a right and admirable goal. And though his approach might safeguard us against fanciful additions, it’s over-simplified. Scripture does not give us grounds to make a one-to-one correlation between human authorial intent and divine authorial intent.

First, there are biblical examples that contradict this over-simplification. There are passages where God has an intention that the human writer didn’t understand. One of the clearest examples is Daniel. Daniel is faithful to record the visions God gives him. But he explicitly states that he did not understand their meaning (Daniel 8:27;12:8-9, etc.). Sometimes Daniel gets an explanation, sometimes not. And even when there is an explanation, Daniel says he still doesn’t understand what God means in these words. These examples show without a doubt that God’s intention in Scripture sometimes goes beyond the human author’s intention.

It’s also worth considering how the New Testament authors use the Old Testament. For example, Matthew quotes a line out of Hosea 11, “Out of Egypt I called my son” (Matthew 2:15). Matthew goes on to tell us that this is actually fulfilled in Jesus being taken to Egypt and then returning after the death of Herod. In other words, the full meaning of this phrase is found in Christ. But in Hosea, there’s not even the slightest hint that this phrase has anything to do with Jesus. It’s actually used to describe how God historically brought Israel out of Egyptian slavery. And yet, Matthew tells us that this phrase was ultimately intended to point toward Christ. And we don’t get to argue, because Matthew is Scripture too. When Hosea wrote these words, it seems highly unlikely that he was thinking about Jesus. But the New Testament shows us that this Christ-centered meaning was part of the divine intention. The full meaning here, as in all Scripture, is found in its reference to Christ.

This brings up another interesting question: Where should we get our model of Bible interpretation? Ironically, sometimes those who would call us to faithful Bible interpretation ignore the New Testament’s own model of interpretation. Usually by “faithful interpretation” they mean a strictly grammatical-historical approach that acknowledges only the human author’s intent. But as we’ve seen, the New Testament authors approached Scripture with an understanding of the divine authorial intent that at times goes beyond the human author’s intent. They also understood the divine intent to be ultimately Christocentric. So if we really want to be faithful to the Bible, we must use the Bible’s own interpretive model. We cannot neglect the overarching, Christ-centered divine intent.

What We Should Look For

None of this is to say that the human authorial intent can or should be abandoned. On the contrary, God’s intended meaning cannot contradict the human authorial intent. If it could, this would be a mystical approach to Scripture where we just import our own preferred ideas and the human author’s words mean nothing. Let’s be clear: There is no genuine divine meaning which would contradict the human authorial intent. But that also doesn’t mean it stops with the human intent.

On the other hand, as we’ve seen, Scripture supports the idea of a divine meaning which the human author doesn’t always fully understand. In this sense, the term “grammatical-historical plus” used by professor E. Earle Ellis to describe the New Testament authors’ interpretive model is fitting. The fuller meaning of Scripture is just that: fuller than mere human intent, but never contradictory to it. God may intend more than the human author does, but never less and never at odds with the human author’s intent.

The authors of the New Testament use Old Testament Scripture, understanding that the goal of the divine intent in any passage is Christ Himself. The meaning of a passage cannot be detached from the overall revelation of Scripture which culminates in and centers on Christ Himself. He is the ultimate and final revelation of God (Hebrews 1:1-2). Jesus points this out in his rebuke of the Pharisees, saying, “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me” (John 5:39). Christ is the eternal Word of God. He is the ultimate goal of the divine intent in revelation. As we study the Scriptures, both for ourselves and in preparing sermons for our churches, may our eyes be open to the fullness of God’s intent in pointing us to Christ in every passage.

Notes:

¹ Vern Poythress, “Divine Meaning of Scripture”.
² Walter Kaiser, quoted in Jared Compton, “Shared Intentions? Reflections on Inspiration and Interpretation in Light of Scripture’s Dual Authorship”.

After the sermon, a man came up to let me know he wasn’t happy with what he had heard. He didn’t put it quite that bluntly, but it was all over his furled brow and panicked expression. “So what did you think about the sermon?” I asked with a smile, “There was too much grace!” he said indignantly. It’s one of those complaints that you do your hardest not to laugh at because you actually take it as a compliment. Martyn Lloyd-Jones writes in his commentary on Romans 6:

“There is no better test as to whether a man is really preaching the New Testament gospel of salvation than this, that some people might misunderstand it and misinterpret it to mean that it really amounts to this, that because you are saved by grace alone it does not matter at all what you do; you can go on sinning as much as you like because it will redound all the more to the glory of grace. This is a very good test of gospel preaching. If my preaching and presentation of the gospel of salvation does not expose it to that misunderstanding, then it is not the gospel.”¹

Lloyd-Jones’ point is that this kind of criticism is actually a sign that we are preaching the Gospel rightly. That has been the case since the days of Paul the Apostle (see Romans 6). Reactions like this, however, are all too common among Christians. I believe that there are two things at play here. The first is a misunderstanding of the role of the Gospel in a believer’s life after conversion. The second is a misdirected, even if well intentioned, concern about the abuse of grace and permissiveness toward sin in the life of the believer, in other words, an unfounded fear of antinomianism.

The Role of the Gospel in the Believer’s Life

Many Christians seem to believe that the Gospel is really only for unbelievers. The Gospel is seen as the entryway into relationship with God, but then once it has served its purpose, it should be set aside for “more advanced things.” Sure, we might pull the Gospel from the shelf every now and again if we sin and feel the need for forgiveness, but that’s about it. For many Christians, this is the extent of the Gospel’s role after initial conversion. This couldn’t be further from the biblical picture of the role of the Gospel in the Christian’s life. The Gospel is not merely a push start for the Christian life; it is the foundation for the Christian life from beginning to end. The Gospel is just as vital for growth and sanctification as it is for initial justification. In other words, the Gospel is for believers just as much as it is for unbelievers.

Paul writes in Romans 1, “I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation…” The problem is that we normally read this as if it said, “the gospel… is the power of God for justification.” But the term “salvation” in Scripture refers not only to the initial act of God in justifying us through faith in Christ. It also refers to our sanctification and ultimately our glorification together with Christ. Salvation covers all these aspects. That means the Gospel is also the power for sanctification, not merely for justification. It is the power to transform, not just the power to pardon. Unfortunately, we sometimes bifurcate the work of salvation and act as though justification is God’s work, and sanctification is ours. We act as though the Gospel has importance for the first, but means almost nothing for the second. But the Gospel is the power for the whole of salvation.

In some circles, we tend to look at the Gospel as the means for justification, and the Holy Spirit as the means for sanctification. This is a false division on two levels. First, while Christ is the Lamb of God who was sacrificed for us, it is only the Spirit who applies this work to our hearts in justifying and regenerating us (Titus 3:5). Second, we would do well to remember the statements of Christ about the Spirit’s work. “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me” (John 15:26). The Spirit does indeed work sanctification in our lives, described (among other ways) as “the fruit of the Spirit.” However, the means He uses to produce that fruit is to continually point us to Christ, to the Gospel. It is not a contest between the Holy Spirit or the Gospel—which one will hold the title of being the source of the “power of God” for sanctification. Rather, the Spirit powerfully transforms us by pointing us ever more clearly to the Gospel.

Too Much Grace?

To return to the original complaint I mentioned, it brings up a valid question: Is there such a thing as too much grace? There are some who would say “yes”—like the man who approached me after the sermon. The argument goes that if we too strongly emphasize that our salvation is completely secure by grace, not dependent on anything we do but solely on what Jesus has done for us, that this will give people license to dive headlong into all kinds of sin.

We must admit that there are certainly those calling themselves Christians for whom grace is just an excuse to continue living for self and sin. But these are likely people who have never seen the costliness of grace, never been amazed by its beauty. Yes, God’s grace is free for us, but it comes to us at the cost of His only Son, flowing from His wounds. For the abuser of grace, it is just a philosophical concept broken off from the suffering of Christ. This person’s concept of grace is superficial at best. In other words, their problem is not too much grace, but too little.

For the abuser of grace, it is just a philosophical concept broken off from the suffering of Christ. This person’s concept of grace is superficial at best. In other words, their problem is not too much grace, but too little.

It would be overly simple to say that all such people in brazen sin are not actually Christians. There are surely some Christians who find their way to this miserable state. Is “too much grace” to blame? Likely the opposite. What happens is that the Christian doesn’t see the beauty and depths of the Gospel, does not delight in the richness of the grace provided through the cross. Instead, they labor under a latent fear and insecurity and so wear themselves out trying to sanctify themselves in the power of their own will. Some simply give up in despair after a time. Again, the problem is not that they need less grace, but more grace!

The moralist would argue that too much grace is dangerous. However, the only motive he offers as a replacement is fear. Yes, one can certainly scare a Christian into a life of busyness via threats of judgment. But while this might make a busy, religious person, it will never make a worshiper. That person’s heart might keep rules and stay busy out of fear, but it will not love and delight in God. It cannot. God is only a dark threat on the horizon of such a heart, rather than a faithful father. Any diminishing of grace creates in us the fear-based mentality of a slave. But Paul writes, “You did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, ‘Abba! Father!’” (Romans 8:15).

In stark contrast to the moralist’s argument, seeing the fullness and beauty of grace is the only thing that can cause us to enjoy Christ and happily pour out our lives for Him. Focusing on God’s abundant, unbridled goodness rather than our efforts is exactly what inspires love and fuels sanctification for the sake of the One who loves us so well. Any “change” without this motive is mere fleshly self-improvement. It is only the Gospel of grace, applied by the Spirit, which is the power of God unto sanctification. The puritan writer Thomas Chalmers summed it up well in his sermon The Expulsive Power of a New Affection:

“The freer the Gospel, the more sanctifying is the Gospel; and the more it is received as a doctrine of grace, the more will it be felt as a doctrine [leading] to godliness… That very peculiarity which so many dread as the germ of antinomianism, is, in fact, the germ of a new spirit, and a new inclination against it… Never does the sinner find within himself so mighty a moral transformation, as when under the belief that he is saved by grace, he feels constrained thereby to offer his heart a devoted thing, and to deny ungodliness.”²

If we are living half-heartedly as Christians, toying with sin, not really growing in sanctification, the answer is not less grace, but more.

¹ Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Romans: An Exposition of Chapter 6, pp. 8-9.
² Thomas Chalmers, The Expulsive Power of a New Affection, p. 10, accessed on October 10, 2017.

I remember as a young Christian reading through Isaiah and running into the passage where God says, “Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights” (Isaiah 42:1). I recall the feeling of despair that welled up in my chest as I said to myself, “I want to be that kind of a servant of the Lord, but I can’t!” As I continued reading, I realized an amazing truth: “This is not about me! It’s about Jesus!” As I began to understand that Jesus was the perfect Servant on my behalf, fulfilling what I never could, so that God’s soul would delight in me by His grace, my despair turned to joy and worship.

While I came to see that this particular passage was about Jesus, I did not yet understand then that the news was much better than I could imagine. Not only was this passage about Jesus; the whole Bible is about Jesus! After His resurrection, Jesus met two of His disciples on the road to Emmaus. They didn’t recognize Him and were dejected because Christ had been killed. But we read that Jesus rebuked them for their unbelief and then “…Beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.” (Luke 24: 27).

The reality that allows our hearts to rejoice as we open the Word is that all of Scripture is about Christ.

We read in the gospel of John that Jesus is the eternal Word of God (John. 1:1,14). Since that’s the case, we should not be surprised to find that the primary goal of the written Word of God is to reveal to us the eternal Word, Jesus.

Now, many Christians have known since Sunday school that “Jesus” is the right answer to every question. Jesus is the hero of the Bible, the One who sets right all that was wrong, the One who rescues us. When we look at the Bible as a whole story—of creation, fall, redemption and restoration—we see that Jesus is the hero. But as pastors who seek to faithfully exposit the Word of God, the question for us becomes: Do our sermons reflect this wonderful, Christ-centered bearing of the Scriptures?

Who is the hero in our sermons? Sadly, too often, we present the Christian as the hero of the sermon rather than Christ.

Of course, none of us would ever say that we are the hero of the story. But when sermons are preached that put us and what we do center stage—our faithfulness, our courage, etc.—rather than Jesus and what He has done, we are essentially telling people that they are the hero. Just think of how many sermons you’ve heard (or preached!) about this or that Old Testament saint, his example of faith, and then the exhortation is given that we are to have faith like this saint. That is all true, but if our sermons end there, we have put our listeners and ourselves in the role of the hero. To summarize a challenge presented by Tim Keller: “If you can preach your sermon in a synagogue without getting chased out, it is not a Christian sermon.” I love that. If our sermons are just calls to emulate this or that spiritual virtue, we are not truly preaching Christian sermons. We don’t just need generic calls to “be faithful” or apply some bit of biblical advice to our lives. We need Christ Himself and nothing less.

The only possible result of putting the Christian at the center of our sermons rather than Christ is self-condemnation or self-reliance—neither of which is pleasing to God. For example, when we read about the story of Samson and are cautioned not to follow his foolish ways, to recognize the traps of the enemy, where lust takes us, etc.—these things are all true. But they are not enough to transform us. One person might acknowledge himself as being in the place of Samson and feel condemned with every word about Samson’s foolishness. Another will see the example of Samson and feel like he or she is better than that, or at least can be better than that, and will set about with a sense of resolve to be better. That will last a few days until this believer falls into one or the other temptation, and then he will join in the group of the self-condemned.

We need much more than an example. If that were all we needed, Christ’s coming would be unnecessary.

While the warnings in Samson’s story are very real, we must move beyond that and learn to see in this story the better Samson, Jesus, the One to whom all Scripture points. Like Samson, in Christ, we see a miraculously born Son upon whom the Spirit of the Lord came to raise Him up as a Deliverer for God’s people. He was faced with temptation but, contrary to Samson, overcame. He also gave Himself to be bound and led away for the sake of the ones He loved, and ultimately, gave His own life to destroy the enemies of God. Samson entered into sin and compromise not because he just needed to “be on guard,” but because he had turned sex and relationships into a false god. He believed that this would fill his desire for love and pleasure.
But when we see the truly loving Spouse, Christ, who was taken captive for the sake of His bride and who gave His life to conquer our enemies—only that can truly free our hearts from lesser lovers, to be enraptured with the only One who can satisfy. What our people (and we ourselves) need is not just practical tips for Christian living or spiritual pep talks. We need to see the all-satisfying fullness of Christ to whom the Word points. And when we do see the greatness of His love and the glory of His Gospel, we are freed from both condemnation and self-reliance. May Christ be the hero of our sermons, for that is the kind of sermon, which will truly transform our hearts.

“Owe no one anything except to love one another.” Paul gives us this pithy commandment in Romans 13. But if we’re honest, we might be tempted to ask, “Why do I owe anyone love in the first place?” Sure, we can understand that we owe Jesus our love; just look at all He’s done for us! But truth be told, most people haven’t really done much for us that we should owe them anything at all, let alone our love. But notice that Paul here isn’t just saying we should love others. He’s saying that we are literally obligated, indebted to show one another love. We “owe” them love. The word “owe” in the original language is most frequently used of financial debt. So where does this love-debt come from?

Jesus uses this same word in a very unique way. In Jn. 13, the Lord abases Himself to the menial task of washing the disciples’ (very likely rather crusty) feet, wiping them with the very towel He had clothed Himself with. Afterwards He says to them, “You call Me Teacher and Lord, and you say well, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought (same word “are obligated”) to wash one another’s feet.” Now, we get that it’s a good example and all, an ideal to strive for, but why exactly does Jesus choosing to humbly serve these disciples obligate them, and us, to do likewise?

Jesus Himself gives us the answer in emphasizing His role as “Teacher and Lord”. The ancient, eastern culture that Jesus lived in was an “honor culture”. If a person was in a position of honor, there was certain protocol that had to be followed. For example, if a king were to kneel before someone else in the presence of his subjects, the subjects would also immediately kneel before that person. You probably even recognize this from a number of movies. If a rabbi, a “teacher” of the Law, were to humble himself through fasting, it was expected that his disciples would do the same. If a slave were to see his master, his “lord”, begin to do some menial task, he would without hesitation come along and take over that work. The subjects/disciples/slaves were never to position themselves above their master. Jesus Himself says as much in Mt. 10. If their superior were to abase himself in a given way and they did not, it was tantamount to saying, “I am above my master/teacher/king”, which in reality is a rejection of his position as lord. Therefore, Jesus says, “If I, as your Lord and Teacher, have done this, you have a direct obligation to Me to humble yourself and serve one another in the same way, thus honoring Me.”

This is vitally important to grasp in living out the Gospel. We often think of our love and service to others as what we give to them. Jesus completely contradicts this understanding. The fact is, our love and service to others does not tell primarily what we think of them. It tells what we think of Christ. Our attitude towards another person, as disciples and servants of Jesus, reflects foremost our evaluation of Him, not of that person whom we are loving. To use the words of Dietrich Bonhoeffer in Life Together, “Among Christians there are no direct relationships. All relationship exists in and through Christ… any direct relationship is ultimately sinful.” That is, as Christians, each one of our human relationships is mediated by and reflects upon our relationship with Jesus first and foremost. This is why we have a debt, an obligation to love one another, because loving others is actually a question of honoring or insulting our Lord. When we refuse to love and serve another person, we are essentially saying, “Jesus, I know you think that person is worth dying for, worth Your life, but they aren’t worth mine.” In this way we are boasting against and insulting our Lord and, in some sense, denying His relationship to us as our Master.

The reason we do such an awful job of loving and serving people so often is in part because we have failed to realize this truth. We attempt to love a person for his own sake, and of course fail because in most cases they haven’t done much for us to be in any real debt to them. But in failing to relate to them through Christ, for His sake, we put the pressure to fuel our love directly on the person and ultimately crush them under it. This is why Bonhoeffer said that all “direct” relationships are ultimately sinful and, as sin always is, ultimately destructive. Love for someone who is unworthy (as we all are) can only be sustained and empowered if it is mediated by One who has the resources to command and inspire our love on His behalf. And since there is only One who is worthy, all relationships must exist “through Christ”. To attempt to create or maintain relationship directly is to ensure our failure in this endeavor of loving and to crush the recipient of our “love” under a burden he cannot bear.

It is this understanding that led John, who recorded the foot-washing scene, to later write in his 1st epistle, “If someone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? And this commandment we have from Him: that he who loves God must love his brother also.” In other words, if a person thinks he loves God but is holding hatred in his heart and refusing to love his brother, he is lying to himself! In reality, how we treat our brother has much more to do with what we think of Jesus than it has to do with our opinion of our brother. In a very real sense, based on Jesus’ position as Lord, if we do not love our brother, we are not loving God. Jesus said that the first commandment was to love God with all your being and the second like it: to love your neighbor as yourself. As it turns out, the second is so much like the first that we could really say they are the same commandment. Loving our brother is not an optional addition to loving God, nor even secondary to loving God. It is the same thing from a different angle. There is really only one commandment: love. But this truth is also what empowers us to love others as Christ has loved us. Maybe the people we are trying to love haven’t done anything to inspire our love. But Jesus has and that’s the point. It is His unconditional love for us that fuels our love for others as an act of worship to Him. As John writes, “We love because He first loved us.”

Sometimes it seems like Christians have a particular knack for looking down on and judging one another. Often this has to do with differences in personal convictions over grey areas. These are areas where Scripture does not give an unequivocal “thou shalt not…” or “do this…”, requiring Christians to work out a of wise approach to the matter at hand as they navigate the issue through life. In Romans 14:9-23, Paul deals with how to approach the question of convictions in amoral areas in a way that honors Christ and our brothers and sisters in the process.

“19 Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeedare pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense. 21 It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak. 22 Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. 23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.” (NKJV)

The passage contains four important principles for Christian unity:

Be Careful How You Define Sin

“All things indeed are pure.” In other words, if the Bible doesn’t say something is sin, you must not universally define it as sin. If the Bible is silent on a particular issue, or gives freedom in an area, or doesn’t set forth a specific stance, then no Christian, no matter how insightful and spiritual they think they are, has the right to declare it as sin or universally unacceptable. There are plenty of things the Bible does say are sin (which you would think would keep us busy enough as it is). Interestingly, spiritual pride is near the top of the list. As soon as you take any of your own, personal convictions and try to force it on others or turn it in to a blanket rule for all Christians, or simply quietly look down on others who don’t share your conviction, you have effectively become a Pharisee. These areas of conviction include things like moderate alcohol use (as opposed to drunkenness, which is clearly prohibited in Scripture), birth control, watching Harry Potter, eating bacon, playing cards, listening to secular music, using electricity, and on the list goes.

Follow Your Conscience

“Whatever is not from faith is sin.” This means that if you are personally convinced God doesn’t want you to do something, even though the Bible is silent on it, then don’t do it! For you it would be sin! The reason it would be sin is not because the thing or action itself is wrong, but because, in as far as you are convinced, it would be disobedience to God, and that is sin. So stick to your convictions. Live by them if you believe God is leading you to. Just don’t force them on others because then you’ll have a much bigger problem than eating bacon or watching Harry Potter.

Serve Your Brother, Not Yourself

“It is good not to do anything by which your brother stumbles.” That is, if the option is between using your freedom to do what you want and serving your brother, we should always go with the latter. Always. We are given great freedom in Christ not so we can do whatever we want, but so that in surrendering it for others we may become more like Jesus. The Cross of Jesus proves without a doubt that serving others is more important than standing on your rights. Those who have freedom in an area should be mature enough not to force their freedom on one who has more sensitive convictions. But does that mean we have to stop drinking coffee, eating bacon, watching TV and using electricity just cause it might stumble someone, somewhere in some hypothetical situation?

Wield Your Freedom in Love

“Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God.” To answer the previous question, no, to serve others with our freedom doesn’t mean that we become as strict in our convictions as they are. It does mean that we use our freedom with discretion and readiness to surrender it for others. The principle is not “if this might stumble someone, somewhere, I should never, ever do it.” Otherwise you’ll end up being a raw food vegan who doesn’t use electricity because “somewhere out there” is a vegan Amish person who might be stumbled by your freedom. But the thing is, love doesn’t exist in “theory”, only in practice. The principle Paul states here is this: “If my freedom in a given area does stumble the person I’m with right now, then in his presence I will refrain.” So enjoy the freedom God has given you, but use your freedom in places and ways it won’t stumble others. At the very least, you can enjoy your plate of bacon as you sit before God in solitude and thank Him for making pigs so delicious. Don’t worry, it won’t stumble Him. Understand, this principle does not mean we stop using freedom. But it does mean we surrender it at times for the good of those people we are actually serving and whom it would stumble at that moment.

If we as Christians would all apply these simple Scriptural principles, there would be a lot less petty fighting and contentions among the body of Christ.

Final Disclaimer

One disclaimer should be mentioned at this point: if a person is attempting to set up their own, personal convictions as a law for all other believers, it really means they are trying to set themselves up as God, since He is the only One who has the right to establish commands for all Christians. In that case, what we should do? We should do what Jesus did: contradict and break pharisaic pseudo-laws boldly. And if they are contradicting the will of God through their man-made convictions, we should ignore them and even be willing to rebuke them. Jesus often practiced this when the Pharisees attempted to thwart the work and will of God with their extra-biblical convictions. Jesus’ response was to boldly contradict them and continue on with the work His Father was doing. He even seemed to take delight in pressing the buttons of religious Pharisees at times. After all, He could’ve avoided offending their sensitivities if He wanted to, but He didn’t. Perhaps this was to show those upon whom the Pharisees had laid their burdens that one can truly love God without all the extra baggage of man-made restrictions.