For nearly a decade I have been alarmed at the liberal drift of the CBOQ.  I have not been silent in my concern, I have been consistently vocal in my attempt to rouse other pastors and churches to the danger of liberalism in our midst.  I am a co-founder of the Covenant Life Renewal Association (CLRA) and have had a part in influencing the various motions that have been presented over the past few years at Assembly.  I believe that the decision made at the 2020 assembly on the motions from Forest, Leamington and Walsh Baptist are amongst the most significant decisions that have come before the CBOQ in 95 years.  As you decide on these motions, so you decide the next century of Canadian Baptist practice.

The choice could not be more clearly presented, nor so stark.  

The Gathering of Baptists are not seeking to conceal their desire to proceed in a liberal direction, making the case that homosexuality is not a sin.  The logical trajectory of their argument is to fully embrace the LGBTQ movement and the eventual ordination of LGBTQ clergy.  If this is not so let the Gathering of Baptists deny it clearly.

The CLRA churches are proposing motions that would reject autonomy as an ‘ultimate’ value for baptists and call for a binding agreement for all churches who are part of the CBOQ.  The CBOQ board is not wrong in advising the constituents that to pass these motions will involve a radical transformation of the CBOQ.  We are fully aware of that.  In fact, the CLRA churches of the CBOQ are calling for us to re-establish a binding doctrinal standard.

You will note that I said ‘re-establish’. It is a myth that we have never had such a standard.  Arrange your own visit to the CBOQ archives and ask to look at the constitution of any BCOQ association in the 1920’s, 30’s, 50’s, or 70’s and you will see that all of our churches once held to a doctrinal statement that was established at the association level.  Anyone who suggests that we have never shared an agreed upon doctrinal position is either uninformed of the facts or seeking to conceal them.

The CLRA churches are not suggesting a radical departure from who baptists are, just a radical departure from who we have become.  

In conversation with other CLRA pastors there is a great deal of uncertainty about the future.  Candidly, most of us would like to be done with this struggle.  I am tired. We are tired.  We have fought for a long time to get to this point, and it would be far easier for our churches to depart and contend no longer.  We know that if these three motions are carried in October it will mean a long and difficult struggle to see them ratified.  It will mean throwing out our constitution and re-writing our identity.  It will likely mean court challenges, lawsuits and public shaming by the liberal press and a liberal society.  It may even mean public protests outside our church doors.

Do you remember Eli the priest from the book of 1 Samuel?  Eli was a good man, but a weak man.  He was personally upright, but he did nothing about the wickedness of his sons and the shame they brought upon the congregation of Israel.  He didn’t speak up, he didn’t act, he simply knew and did nothing.  This has been my experience with the typical CBOQ pastor: they are good but weak.  They abstain from votes they should affirm.  They defer motions they know they should pass because they fear a future motion not yet before them.

But lest you be tempted to stand up ‘just this once’ and pass these motions, let me plead with you not to do it.  The CLRA churches will be fine somewhere else.  They will find fellowship and support amongst a faithful family of churches who holds a traditional view on scripture.  With CLRA gone the moderate churches will no longer need to contend to both the left and the right. 

If you decide to stand upon these motions, then stand for all three, but realize you will not be called to stand ‘just this once’, it is a call to a radical reformation and renewal.  I realize many of you find yourselves between a rock and a hard place.  I don’t apologize for making the choice so stark.  But I urge you not to abstain.  As I began so I conclude, the choice before the CBOQ is the most significant in 95 years.  

Beware, with the passing of these motions the people of Canada will 'cancel' the CBOQ.

Beware, with the defeat of these motions the Lord will write ‘Ichabod’ upon the CBOQ.

Is autonomy the value to end all values or is there a point at which autonomy must be balanced against other legitimate concerns?  Is there a point at which a church ceases to actually be a Baptist Church, or a church of Jesus Christ at all?  Is there a point where the other churches in fellowship decide that one in their midst has become ‘subversive to the gospel’ and puts them out of fellowship?  What would that point be?  Would we drop a pastor that participated in a same-sex union?  What if they didn’t sign any documents, but just stood as an attendant in the wedding party?  What about inviting an aboriginal leader to pray and burn sweet grass as a Native blessing ceremony to begin a church service, would that trigger censure?  What if a pastor were to deny that the New Testament teachings are actually true?  Would we put out a church for espousing ‘Universalism’ and denying the doctrine of hell or the resurrection or the virgin birth?  What about a pastor who openly denies any belief in the original Adam?  What about an Assembly speaker who urges people to lay aside their Bible’s so they can listen better to God and then goes on to speak about sitting under your soul tree and coaxing out your soul animal?  The answer, so far, is no – we wouldn’t, because we haven’t, all these things have already happened in the Canadian Baptist family within the past decade and the most we could muster was an uncomfortable shuffle of the feet and a looking the other way.  But maybe you’re just waking up now. 

We have a problem.  Many of us know we have a problem.  The pastors who are engaged in this denomination have seen it, and some are alarmed at the thought of how deep the issues go.  Yet any attempt to correct the problem is met with a shrug of the shoulders or a raise of the eye-brows and the magic word ‘AUTONOMY’.  Does that word really mean that a Baptist Church is untethered from any agreed upon doctrinal statement, to sail whichever way they choose?  Worse, does that word mean that every other church in the association is now tethered to the furthest outlier with the only option being to follow meekly along or to withdraw from the denomination?

Just about every pastor can name a couple of churches that exist in their Association that are in ‘isolationist mode’ and have been for decades; no representation, no letter and likely no dues.  For all intents and purpose they have dropped out.  On the other hand, most can name the church or churches in your association who are constantly pushing the envelope of ‘progressive’ theology and practice further and further.  Most moderate pastors are now caught in a vice; they don’t love the compromise, but they love the denomination.  We don’t want to travel down certain roads, but is the only option isolation or departure? 

We, Canadian Baptists of Ontario and Quebec, are wrongly understanding automony.  We have made autonomy king over all other Baptist distinctives and the result is the decline and potential collapse of a denomination.  If the CBOQ is to be saved it will require determined action and decisive change of mind on the meaning of autonomy and association.  Happily, it does not require some untraveled road or new innovation; the baptist’s of the past are happy to furnish us with the tools we need to restore soundness to our shared fellowship.

In 1644 one of the earliest Baptist confessions was written.  The confession demonstrates that our English ancestors understood the need to balance autonomy with an associational principle of shared doctrinal belief.  Historian Barrie White writes, “The principle of congregational autonomy, however, which could so swiftly lead by itself to a mere isolationism was modified by certain convictions to which expression was given in both the preface to the 1644 Confession and its article XLVII.”[i]

In the words of these historic baptists: “…although the particular Congregations be distinct and severall (sic.) Bodies, every one a compact and knit Citie (sic.) in it selfe (sic.); yet are they all to walk by one and the same Rule, and by all meanes (sic.) convenient to have the counsel and help one of another in all needful affaires (sic.) of the Church, as members of one body in the common faith under Christ their onely (sic.) head.”[ii]

White , quoting from a 1653 document printed as ‘The Baptists of Berkshire’, writes, “…a major motive for membership of an individual congregation was ‘to keep each other pure, and to clear ye profession of ye Gospel from scandal’, the same motive must also operate to encourage individual congregations to have fellowship together.  Hence ‘unless orderly churches be owned orderly, and disorderly churches be orderly disowned’ the church on earth could not be kept pure nor could the profession of the Gospel be kept from scandal.[iii]

If, then, autonomy on matters of doctrine and practice was not forefront in the minds of 16th Century Baptists, what did they mean by autonomy?  One must remember the milieu in which the baptist’s came forth, one will be reminded that they were surrounded by state churches, the church of England and the church of Scotland being the near neighbours and oft oppressors of the Baptists.  Baptist autonomy came forth as a declaration that these churches were not under an Episcopal system, nor a Presbyterian system.  They were constituted under the direct Lordship of Christ, and owed no allegiance to any king, human nor ecclesial court.  “They would have pointed out that congregational autonomy meant freedom from obedience to men, a freedom to be jealously guarded not for its own sake but in order to obey Christ.  Joint study of the Bible as the revelation of the mind of Christ would bring unity with his will, and hence, unity between individual congregations.” [iv] 

It may surprise the reader to discover that correcting erring doctrine and expelling churches unwilling to satisfy the doctrinal requirements of association was practiced in historic baptist circles, not only in England, but also in Canada.

Consider this interesting application of this principle in 1861 in Upper Canada.  The Grand River North Association is meeting, in Farlton (near modern day Milton), for their 5th Annual Meeting.  Their baptist autonomy couldn’t be more clear from the entries in the minute book.  On page seven Rev. J. Winterbotham was seconded by Deacon Winter on his statement: 

“That this Association hereby records its conviction of the increasing excellence of the Canadian Baptist and its confidence in the abilities and zeal of its editors while it wishes at the same time to impress on the member of our churches, and friends generally of the Baptist cause, the duty of supporting it, as the organ of the people, and not as the instrument of a hierarchy to be used for the purpose of smothering free discussion.”[v] 

The italicized emphasis is not mine, these words are emphasized in the original minute book, now held in the baptist archive collection at McMaster University.  This is a group of Baptist who understand the importance of autonomy.

The following day the minute book records an extended resolution decrying government sponsorship of sectarian schools, in opposition to the Methodist and Presbyterians who have been quick to line up for some government funding.  The 19th Century Canadian Baptists wanted no part in this.  Rev. Jaz. Cooper is seconded by none other that the Rev. Dr. R. A. Fyfe in stating, “…that in the opinion of this association, the grants made by the legislature from year to year, for sectarian bodies, are in direct opposition to the principle that there should be no connection between church and state;”[vi]  This is an association with autonomy well in hand.

Now consider the fact that this association, with a fully functioning understanding of Baptist Autonomy ejected a church from fellowship as the eleventh and twelfth order of business on Friday afternoon of this same meeting!

Here are the eleventh and twelfth articles in their entirety:

XI. On call of the Moderator for the Waterloo church.  Bro. Davidson reported that Bro. Patton, Caldwell and himself (according to appointment of the Association at last year’s meeting), visited that church, and found that they had adopted doctrines subversive of the gospel, whereupon it was,

XII. Moved by Rev. T.L. Davidson, seconded by Deacon Baker and carried unanimously that said church be struck off the list of Baptist churches composing the Association.[vii]

The minute book for the following year is also in the baptist archive collection at McMaster and contains the conclusion of the action taken upon the Waterloo church by the Grand River Association.  That meeting was held in Drumbo on the 22nd and 23rd of June, 1860 and during the Saturday morning session the issue of ‘The Waterloo Church’ was addressed.  Here again is the entire entry: 

XXIV. The Waterloo church having sent neither letters nor delegates and it being reported that said church had embraced views not held by our denomination, the following were appointed to visit them at convenient times in the ensuing year:  Revs. R.A. Fyfe and Geo. Patton, with Rev. J. Wintherbotham, and Revs. T.L. Davidson, with W.A. Caldwell [viii] 

This is within the parameters of baptist autonomy.  A group of frontier Baptists, among them Dr. Alexander Fyfe understood that this was a proper action for a baptist association to take.  But what mechanism of Baptist polity did they activate to effect the ejection of an autonomous church from their fellowship for ‘doctrines subversive to the gospel’?

The answer to that question is the association principle on the basis of shared doctrinal belief.  This is the same counterweight against unconstrained autonomy that was present in the earliest English Baptist denominations; an agreement that prevented the entire association being dragged along by one church that chose to use their autonomy to flaunt orthodoxy.

Where was this doctrine and principle to be found for the Grand River North Association?  It was written right into their constitution.  Three important statements in the constitution of the Grand River North Association command our attention.  The first is doctrinal in nature, it outlines what every church in their association shares in common; the second is utilitarian, how a church who is part of the association can be dropped from the association; the third is a buttress against compromise and heterodoxy instructing the association on what should be done if one church believes another church has become corrupt in doctrine or practice.

The following articles are given verbatim from the minute book of the first annual meeting of the Grand River North Association, held at Blenheim in late June 1857.  The Grand River Association had divided into North and South the previous year, this constitution is identical to the constitution held by the Grand River South Association, leading the reader to conclude that these ideas come from Baptist thought much earlier than 1857.[ix] 

Art. II. This Association shall be composed of Strict Communion Baptist Churches, who hold in substance the following doctrines: -

The being and unity of God; the existence of three equal persons in the Godhead; the divine inspiration of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as complete and infallible rule of faith and practice; the total moral depravity and just condemnation of all mankind, by the fall of our first parents; the election of grace according to the foreknowledge of God; the proper Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, the all-sufficiency of his atonement; (unclear word) and sanctification by the Holy Spirit, justification by grace alone; perseverance of the Saints; immersion only baptism; believers the only proper subjects of baptism; the Lord’s Supper, a privilege peculiar to immersed believers, regularly admitted to Church fellowship; and the religious observance of the first day of the week; the resurrection of the body, the general judgment; the final happiness of the saints, and the eternal misery of the wicked; the obligation of every intelligent creature to love God supremely; to believe what God says, and to practice what God commands.

Art. IV. This Association shall fully recognize the power and independence of the Churches, and in no case exercise any authority or jurisdiction over them.  Nevertheless, it shall have a right to drop from its fellowship, any Church connected with it, which shall neglect to present itself for two successive years; or which, in the opinion of the Association, may have essentially departed from the faith.

Art. IX. If any Church of this Association shall become corrupt in doctrine or practice, it shall be the duty of some sister Church having knowledge of the fact, to labour with said offending Church; and if satisfaction is not obtained, to “take one or two” more sister Churches, and if they shall judge that there is sufficient ground for the Association to suspend fellowship, and shall so report and testify, then it shall be the duty of the Association to withdraw fellowship, and publish the fact to the world, unless said offending Church shall give satisfaction to the Association.[x]

The Canadian Baptists of the 19th Century held in high regard the idea of Baptist Autonomy but protected orthodoxy with one article that defined their shared convictions (Art. II); one article that insisted that sister churches address error and labour to correct it (Art IX.); and one article that permitted the expulsion of any church that “may have essentially departed the faith.”  (Art. IV)

The Grand River North and South Associations were not anomalies in this regard.  The Long Point Association’s constitution had as their 5th Article the statement, “If any Church shall lose its visibility, or become heretical in doctrine, or immoral in practice, that Church will be dropped from the minutes.”[xi]  The Long Point Association’s constitution went on in article 6 to describe in some detail how a Church was to be determined to be heretical or immoral through the visit and investigation of a sister congregation that addressed the concern and sought to correct the heresy.

The right to expel or drop a dissenting church was universal in the ten early association constitutions I was able to access in the Canadian Baptist Archives at McMaster Divinity College.[xii]

Does not history teach us that our ancestors were better Baptists than we are?  Christian, here are the tools you need to save the Canadian Baptist denomination from endless compromise.  Let us return to the wisdom of the past and to revert our thinking on the meaning of Baptist Autonomy.  The journey back will not be easy; for we have lost something key along the way, a loss that would seem stunning to the pastors and elders who established our churches.  We’ve lost the shared doctrinal agreement upon which we were founded.

Almost all modern constitutions in the CBOQ contain an article that permits the Association to drop churches from fellowship[xiii].  But in almost every case the language of heresy, disorder and ‘gospel inconsistency’, common in our historic documents, has been stripped out, leaving most churches mystified as to how or why such a clause would ever be invoked[xiv].  More significantly, almost all of our associational constitutions no longer carry a statement of doctrinal agreement, nor an article on the necessity or process for confronting error in a sister church.

Thus, in the modern era the Canadian Baptist denomination has fostered a distorted view of autonomy with such a tiny counter-weight on the side of association that it is insufficient to protect the denomination against heterodoxy.  The decline and demise of our associations, widely feared in the CBOQ[xv], is linked to the fact that autonomy has been allowed to run unchecked and has become ‘Doctrinal Autonomy’; damaging the sense of unity between our churches, and replacing it with a sense of suspicion and distrust[xvi].  

The way back is not easy. There is no solution to the current dilemma that would see the happy continuation of liberal churches, teaching revisionist theology, with conservative churches who espouse the doctrines akin to those written in the 19th century.  Our denomination rests on a knifes’ edge, many of the conservative churches preparing for the possibility that every year might be their last within the denomination.  Acknowledging that is the first step.

The next two steps are illustrated by history.  Heartily embraced they would restore health to those that embrace them.

1) An agreed upon doctrinal statement.  The day of geographic association are now behind us.  With the advance of technology churches can now align ‘convictionally’ across hundreds of kilometres with the help of the internet and telephone. 

2) The recovery of a determination to hold firm our shared doctrinal conviction even to the point of parting ways with a dissenting church.  You need to prepare your church to say ‘No’ to doctrinal compromise and continue to say ‘No’.  Expelling doctrinally liberal churches from our Associations is far to be preferred over the current practice of suggesting that an offended church remove itself from fellowship.  Our fellowship has been weakened over the years by the ‘leaking out’ or the ‘isolation’ of sound churches who can no longer tolerate the endless compromises of progressive congregations.

I do not propose the end of autonomy, but rather, that autonomy be used to its proper end - “And although the particular Congregations be distinct and severall Bodies, every one a compact and knit Citie in it selfe; yet are they all to walk by one and the same Rule, and by all meanes convenient to have the counsel and help one of another in all needful affaires of the Church, as members of one body in the common faith under Christ their onely head.”[xvii]


[i] Barry White, “The Doctrine of the Church in the Particular Baptist Confession of 1644,” Journal of Theological Studies, N.S., Vol. XIX, Pt 2, (October, 1968): 583.
[ii] Barry White, “The Origins and Convictions of the First Calvinistic Baptists” Baptist History and Heritage Vol. 25 No. 4, (October, 1990): 46.
[iii] White, “The Doctrine of the Church in the Particular Baptist Confession of 1644,” 589
[iv] Barry White, “The Doctrine of the Church in the Particular Baptist Confession of 1644,” 584
[v] Caldwell, Rev. W.A. Clerk, June 28 & 29, 1861 Minutes of the Grand River (North) Association of Regular Baptist Churches at their Fifth Annual Meeting, (Canadian Baptist Archives at McMaster Divinity College), p. 7.
[vi] Caldwell, Grand River North 1861, p. 6
[vii] Caldwell, Grand River North 1861, p. 3-4
[viii] Caldwell, Rev. W.A. Clerk, June 22 & 23, 1860, Minutes of the Grand River (North) Association of Regular Baptist Churches at their Fourth Annual Meeting, (Canadian Baptist Archives at McMaster Divinity College), p. 5.
[ix] The Grand River (North and South) Association contained churches that would later form the nucleus of Oxford-Brant, Norfolk, South Central and Georgian Bay Associations.
[x] Grand River Assoc. North Clerk, June 19 & 20, 1857, Minutes of the Grand River Association, North of Regular Baptist Churches at their First Annual Meeting, (Canadian Baptist Archives at McMaster Divinity College), p. 12-14.
[xi] Long Point Assoc. Clerk, 1839, Second Annual Meeting of the Long Point Baptist Association, (Canadian Baptist Archives at McMaster Divinity College). 
[xii] The Peterborough Association retained the right to drop from its connection any Church which, “…in the opinion of the Association, may have essentially departed from the faith… and to exclude from a seat in its meeting any minister or delegate who is manifestly corrupt in either theory or practice; the fact in either case may be ascertained in any way not inconsistent with the Gospel.  The Walkerton Association called it a ‘duty’ to withdraw fellowship from churches corrupt in doctrine and practice and publish to the fact to the world, unless the offending church should give satisfaction to the Association.  The 1837 edition of the Upper Canada East Associations constitution gives a utilitiarian clause for dropping heretical churches and then a detailed article on how one church shall address their concern to another church.  The Amherstburg Association Constitution speaks of churches being ‘excommunicated’ for ‘walking disorderly’ and ‘refusing to give satisfaction.’
[xiii] Government requirements for Constitutions may be behind this change.  Although Oxford-Brant managed to adopt a constitution in 2014 that contained doctrinal distinctions.
[xiv] As of the writing of this article I had reviewed the modern constitutions of 9 associations including, Canada Central (now disbanded), Elgin 2010; Lambton, Middlesex, Huron 2011; Norfolk 2011;  Northwestern 2011;  Owen Sound (Revising); Oxford-Brant 2014; South Central (2012); and Western (2012).  Oxford-Brant’s document actually contained a statement of faith and practice as part of the constitution that contained two statements related to autonomy and linked expulsion from the association to departing from the Statement of Faith and Practice.  South Central has a covenant appended to the end of the constitution and by-law that spells out some doctrinal issues, however AUTONOMY seems to resound from every paragraph.  Elgin’s constitution took the unusual step of requiring the Association to consult with the Executive Minister of the CBOQ before proceeding with any motion to exclude a church from their Association.  The reasons for exclusion include ‘disaffection’, ‘for reasonable and just cause’, ‘if it seems advisable’, ‘when it is deemed to be wise and necessary’.  Only Oxford-Brant links exclusion to doctrine.  A far cry from the strong statements of past Baptists.  (For the sake of brevity I have not included these – I can happily email a copy to anyone who has interest.)
[xv] It is widely rumoured that the CBOQ is searching for a replacement for associations, with many associations foundering and at least one, Canada Central, completely defunct. 
[xvi] In Norfolk, pulpit exchanges are sometimes arranged, but with specific exclusions on which churches will not accept pastors from certain churches.
[xvii] White, “The Origins and Convictions of the First Calvinistic Baptists,” 46

Intro: One of my favourite poems is entitled ‘The Book of Life’ and is by John Piper.  I love it because it cuts across the grain right from the opening line to point us to the reality that there is a story lying underneath the words of all the other stories.  That story, the deeper story, is the story that is telling all the other stories.

Before the night he was betrayed,        
 The Lord of glory died;
Indeed before the world was made, 
 The Lamb was crucified.

Before the sin, the spear, the lash      
(Eternal was the flood!)
God put his inkwell at the gash,
And filled it with his blood;

Then with his crimson ink and quill,
A holy world compiled,
And wrote his kind and costly will:
The name of ev’ry child.

Then, finally, with tears, he took
A blade to foreordain,
And graved the title of the book:
The Life, the Lamb, the Slain.

We have looked progressively at the unfolding covenants of scripture.  We have moved from Adam to Noah to Abraham to Moses and on to David.  But this week, though you might think we would go directly on to Christ and consider the ‘NEW COVENANT’ we back up to BEFORE THE BEGINNING.

We are going in search of the MYSTERY hidden for ages and finally revealed in Christ.

The theologians - those who have spent an entire lifetime studying the scriptures - have called this ‘The Covenant of Redemption’.  Those words never appear in scripture, in fact there is no single passage that we can go to and read about this covenant.  But we are CERTAIN that an agreement existed between the trinity before the words of creation were even spoken.

When we speak of MYSTERY we are not speaking of something that is UNKNOWN but rather of something that was hidden and then revealed - it is the great PLOT TWIST.  If you’ve ever read a truly great mystery novel, you discover that you can read it twice with enjoyment.  The first time through you are in the dark, though you know that there is something unknown.  The second time through, with knowledge of the mystery, you wonder how you didn’t recognize it the first time - on every page you see the secret revealed.

So Paul writes: …I became a minister according to the stewardship from God that was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known, the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now revealed to his saints.  To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.  Colossians 1:25-27

Over the next three weeks we will peer into this revealed mystery.

This week we will track the EXISTENCE of an ANCIENT COVENANT THAT PREDATES CREATION.

Next week we will consider the REQUIREMENTS of the Covenant of Redemption.

The final week of the year we will consider the REWARDS promised in the Covenant of Redemption.

This week we want to look at the Evidence in the Old Testament; Evidence in the Statements of Jesus and Evidence in the Writings of the Apostles.

I. Evidence in the Old Testament

a. Psalm 2:7-9 - I will tell of the decree: The Lord said to me, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you.  Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession.  You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.”

Note the word DECREE?  God has decreed that the nations will be subject to his son.  Of course, this Psalm predates Jesus by centuries, but in the book of Acts and Hebrews the fulfilment of this Psalm is ascribed to Jesus Christ.

b. Psalm 40:6-8 - Then I said, “Behold, I have come; in the scroll of the book it is written of me:  I delight to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart.”

These words are also ascribed to Jesus by the New Testament writers.  Note that the servant comes declaring that he has come to accomplish WORDS ALREADY ESTABLISHED… WRITTEN IN THE SCROLL OF THE BOOK?

c. Isaiah 49:1-3 - Listen to me, O coastlands, and give attention, you peoples from afar. The Lord called me from the womb, from the body of my mother he named my name.  He made my mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow of his hand he hid me; he made me a polished arrow; in his quiver he hid me away.  And he said to me, “You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.”

It is Jesus himself who will later identify himself as TRUE ISRAEL the true servant of God.

d. Isaiah 53:10-11 - Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.  Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.

The whole of Isaiah 53 speaks of the SUFFERING SERVANT of the Lord who comes to make atonement for his people.

II. Evidence in Jesus’ Statements

a. Luke 2:46-49 - After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions.  And all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers.  And when his parents saw him, they were astonished.  And his mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us so?  Behold, your father and I have been searching for you in great distress.”  And he said to them “Why were you looking for me?  Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?”

b. John 6:38 - For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.

c. John 12:27-28a - “Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour?  But for this purpose I have come to this hour.  Father, glorify your name.”

d. John 17:4-5 - “I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do.  And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.”

All of these passages make clear that Jesus has a STRONG SENSE OF MISSION.  There is a work that he has been given to do, there is a purpose and an HOUR for which he has come forth, he is not acting INDEPENDENTLY, BUT ACCORDING TO THE WILL OF THE FATHER.

How does Jesus know what he has come to do?  We read no verse in the New Testament of God giving direction to Jesus.

When was this MISSION established?

e. Matthew 26:39, 42 - And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.”

Again, for the second time, he went away and prayed, “My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done.”

There is no doubt that Jesus comes to earth with a mission to fulfil.  The only question is WHEN his work is established.  Is this a CONTINGENCY PLAN come up after creation because Plan ‘A’ failed?  Not at all.

III. Evidence in the Apostle’s Writings

a. Galatians 4:4-5 - But when the fulness of time had come, God sent forth his son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.

b. 1 Peter 1:20 - …[Christ] was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you…

c. Ephesians 1:4; 3:8-11 - …even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.

To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God, who created all things, so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places.  This was according to the eternal purpose that he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord…

d. 2 Timothy 1:9 - …who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began…

All of these passages are pointing to the same thing.

…before the foundation of the world…
…before the foundation of the world…
…the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God…
…the eternal purpose that was realized in Christ… (not plan ‘b’)
…his own purpose and grace before the ages began…

The message of the scripture is that there is a plan, a purpose, a story that is older than our oldest memory.  That there is an agreement between the godhead that was established before the world was made.

Well does the poem declare it:

Before the night he was betrayed,     
The Lord of glory died;
Indeed before the world was made, 
The Lamb was crucified.

Conclusion:

If this is true, if in fact there is a covenant that precedes creation, this raises a question; and the answer to that question answers a number of other questions.

The question (is this not your question) is this:

If God knew before the first ATOM was called into being that the result of this act would be the fall of man and sin which would only be redeemed at the cost of the life of God the Son.  Why did he do it?

I offer two answers, one that speaks to his chief end, the other that speaks to the question of suffering.

The CHIEF END OF GOD is the display of his own glory.  The end of creation is not the redemption of man, that is AN end, but it is subordinate to his chief end.  There was an end that could only be accomplished in this way - the beauty, the comprehensive display and manifestation of God’s glory could not be displayed apart from creation, fall, redemption and glorification.

“Thus it is necessary, that God’s awful majesty, his authority and dreadful greatness, justice, and holiness, should be manifested.  But this could not be, unless sin and punishment had been decreed; so that the shining forth of God’s glory would be very imperfect, both because these parts of divine glory would not shine forth as the others do, and also the glory of his goodness, love and holiness would be faint without them; nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all…”. Jonathan Edwards, Concerning the Divine Decrees, The Works of J.E. Vol 2, p. 528

The second answer also offered in the voice of Jonathan Edwards speaks to whether it was MORAL or ETHICAL to make a world knowing the suffering that would come forth:

“It is impossible for an infinitely wise and good being to do otherwise, than to choose what he sees on the whole to be best.  And certainly reason requires us to suppose, that of all possible events with respect to sin, and the conversion and salvation of particular persons, it is better that one of those possible and opposite events should come to pass than another; and therefore, an infinitely wise and good being must choose accordingly. What God permits, he decrees to permit.”  Jonathan Edwards, Concerning the Divine Decrees, The Works of J.E. Vol 2, p. 537

Put in simple and modern language, Jonathan Edwards is stating that since God is INFINITE he knows the outcome of every possible choice; since God is WISE he knows out of all possible worlds (including no world at all) which will produce the highest and best possible end; since God is GOOD it is impossible for him to choose anything but the very best.

Therefore, in the time before time; knowing the outcome of his act; God, who is INFINITE, and WISE, and GOOD established a covenant with his Son for the creating, redeeming and blessing of the world for the display of his glory.

This is why when Adam and Eve fail in the garden, their failure is not met with immediate death - but rather with the mysterious words of the PROTOEUANGELION - the serpent shall strike the heel of the seed of the woman, but he shall strike its head.

This is why God is able to make covenants with sinful and flawed men like Abraham, Moses and David - because there is already a covenant in play which STANDS SURETY FOR ALL.​

The Messiah is coming… and the Messiah is none other than God made flesh.

December 12, 2016
Dear __________________,
 
Thank you for your note and the copy of the parent’s guide to the health and physical education curriculum.  I commend you on your wisdom in sending this home to parents and inviting concerns and questions.
 
I have read through the parent’s guide a couple of times and wanted to write a brief note so that you can understand the perspective my wife and I take as parents.  My only area of concern is related to the section on ‘sexual health’, and my concerns here are very deep.  As a parent with deep and specific moral convictions, I find it tragic that we have now reduced sexual morality to the question of consent.  Rightly understood, what we are teaching the next generation is that anything is acceptable, provided both parties are consenting.  This is not the morality that has long established the culture you and I grew up in, and I believe it will bring forth very bitter fruit in the future.  Having said this, I realize I am in the minority.
 
I think many people are surprised to discover how openly matters of sexuality are discussed in the home of Christian’s concerned for their children.  We speak openly, and at age appropriate times, to our children about all matters related to human sexuality.  Unlike the current provincial curriculum, however, we hold a much higher standard than consent.  I would agree, that any sexual act that goes against consent is wrong, but I would also teach my children that there are sexual acts between two consenting adults that are also wrong.  The standard we teach and hope our children will be faithful to is that all sexual action is wrong when it occurs between two unmarried people.  Furthermore, we believe that marriage cannot be redefined by the government and will always exist only between one man and one woman.  Again, I realize that I am the minority in this regard, however, this is the firm belief I hold and what I teach my children.
 
In many circles, this sort of teaching is now being exaggerated by our opponents, as if we would teach our children to treat others with disrespect when they hold views other than that which we have taught them.  I hope that you will see in S____ and E_____ that this is not true, that they are taught the older, and I believe more sincere, form of tolerance, that every one has a right to hold an opinion, but not all opinions have equal validity.
 
I have written this note in the hopes of imparting some deeper understanding to the reason behind my request that my children not be instructed in ways that contradict what I believe.  I would be pleased if more teachers took a moment to seek the input of parents on these very sensitive matters.  It is my strong belief that public educators are not rightly equipped to teach morality to children, this is the realm of the parent.
 
I realize that as a public educator you are required to teach certain curriculum.  I also realize you have your own personal views on these matters.  My request, in this regard, is simply that S____ be excused from any class where there will be specific instruction on human sexuality.  I think it would be most helpful if you could let me know by the agenda of upcoming days when this curriculum will be taught so that I can make alternative plans and you will not have to disrupt class in order to centre S____ out and excuse him to the hall.
 
Please feel free to contact me if you wish to work these things out further.  Be assured of my respect and support for you in your role as S____’s teacher, and thank you for honouring my role as his parent.
 
 
Sincerely,
 
 
Marc  Bertrand

Ever had a response like the one below to an article you’ve written or a post you’ve shared online? 

“…my basic truth leads me back to what Jesus would do.  He walked with sinners. Prostitutes, murders, thieves.  He counseled all.  He preached love and exemplified love.  Rules and guidelines come with religion... one very clear rule that has come down through scripture is that we don't sit in judgment of each other.  So I try to understand the different views... but my default is to champion love and understanding.”

This is one of a number of similar responses that have appeared in the comments to a recent article I wrote on how Christians should respond to the SCOTUS ruling in the US.  This response sums up well the common response from religious people who have a ‘fuzzy’ idea of what the Bible says, often backed by the teaching of a pastor who also has a ‘fuzzy’ idea of what the Bible says.
 
(By the way, there is a solution for those with a ‘fuzzy’ idea of what the Bible says – but that isn’t what this article is about.)

Clearly the Bible has a great deal to say about love, and Jesus, in particular, spoke in terms of love.  (Use your computer to search love, loved, loving, etc. in the gospels – you’ll find many results – and most of them aren’t the ones being used to paint Jesus as a gentle flower of inclusivity.)

Here are the ones that are popularly used on social media:

John 3:16 – ‘For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.’

John 13:34 – A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.  By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.

John 15:9 – As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you.  Abide in my love.  (Make sure you DO NOT read the next verse or it ruins the impression that Jesus was calling all people to a non-discerning position of general acceptance of all people and positions.)

Or – to draw from a different gospel…

Matthew 5:43-44 – ‘You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.  But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you…

Matthew 22:39 – ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’

These sorts of responses have a tendency to set a lot of Christians on their heels; after all, they believe the Bible is the Word of God, and the Bible truly says the things that people are quoting, so maybe opposing same-sex marriage isn’t a Christian thing to do!

However, in Romans 12:9, the Bible gives us a working definition of genuine love.  This little verse is worthy of your consideration if you’re trying to figure out how Christian love works.

‘Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good.’ Romans 12:9 (ESV)

I want to define three terms from this short verse.

I. Let Love Be Genuine

The Greek text at this point contains no verb.  To be super literal, the apostle Paul simply writes: ‘Genuine Love’ (agape anupokritos) and then goes on to his teaching.  Every major translation supplies a verb, transforming this into an implicit command, and that is the intent of the passage.  This verse heads a section that describes and defines what genuine love looks like in the church and the Christian life.

We need to consider this.  Our culture doesn’t use words very clearly. Those who hold to liberal theology – that is, theology that would reject the infallibility of scripture and would scoff at believing that every word in the Bible is the word of God – default to ‘love-language’ on a regular basis.

But my own camp, the camp of historic conservatism does not repudiate love – we simply want to define it.

If, for example, what you mean by love is that we are willing to perish in order to give you an opportunity to hear the gospel – and we will pour out our lives to get it to you, and dig you a well and build you a school while we pray and preach and plead for you to leave behind your old idols and come to Christ.  We are all for that.  Our gospel drive is fuelled by love.

If, on the other hand, what you mean by love is that we respect and honour people too much to disrupt their lives by explaining that there is a just and righteous God before whom all the world will one day stand and give an account; that in their current state they stand condemned and separated from God; that no amount of effort on their part can save them – but that God has sent his own Son to pay the penalty for their sin and will save them on the basis of his righteousness if they will only lay their faith on Christ alone.  If you mean by love that we don’t do that – we simply make sure that you have water, food, education and a micro-finance loan because it would be unloving to link the GOOD NEWS OF SALVATION with the good news of clean water.  If that is what you mean by love – than historic conservatism repudiates you as a citadel of Satan; doing the work of the devil by shoveling souls into hell.

That may seem like an extreme response, but I believe it is the biblical response – look again on this little verse and what it reveals about genuine love.

II. Abhor What Is Evil

 ‘Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good.’ Romans 12:9 (ESV)

How is ‘Sincere Love’ described?  The first description is to abhor what is evil.

Do you know how the lexicon defines the term ‘abhor’?  To abhor is quite literally to hate exceedingly!  Does that strike you as strange – I think Paul meant for it to strike you as strange!  I think he was very intentional in setting up this paradox:

LOVE HATES EXCEEDINGLY!

What does love hate?  Love hates evil!  So how do we define evil?

If we were to ask the person on the street what is evil – what responses might we find?

ISIS – HITLER – CHILD-ABUSE – TERRORISM

If we were to ask the person in the pew, what is evil, the list would expand.

ABORTION – EUTHANASIA – SEX AS AN EXPRESSION OF PERSONAL PREFERENCE

But what answer would Paul give when we come back and ask him to define evil.

We don’t have to look far, he uses the term 11 times in the book of Romans – let’s look at how the term is used:

(Speaking of those who do not worship or thank God we come to these words in Romans 1:28-32) - And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.  They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice.  They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness.  They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.  Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. (ESV)

Paul is describing every person in the world, evil is set in among four other words –

UNRIGHTEOUSNESS – the opposite of righteousness.

COVETOUSNESS – discontent with what God has given.

MALICE – the desire that bad things happen to people I don’t like.

Add EVIL to this mixture and you have a definition of how the whole world lives.

In Romans 2:9 we read that God’s judgment is upon those who do evil, and it is equally against Jew and Gentile: There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek…

If we stopped at this point in our examination, we would have a skewed picture.  We would then say that love means HATING worldliness.  We are opposed to the sinful practices of the world. 

That is correct, but it isn’t the whole picture.  The Christian who has sincere love looks deeper.

The apostle Paul, speaking of his own struggle with sin in Romans 7 writes: For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh.  For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out.  For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing.  Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.  So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand.

Brother and sister Christian – it is to vague to speak of evil as the most heinous things of history perpetrated by people given to violence.  Those things are evil but evil is closer to home.

It is not enough to speak of evil as worldliness, as unrighteousness and discontent and malice towards neighbours.  These things are evil, but evil lies closer than this.

It is disingenuous to speak about evil only as that which God hates so much that he will finally destroy it in judgment – that is true – but there is more.

Evil, as Paul is describing it, is something that I struggle with day by day.  Sin is evil.  All sin is evil.  My sin is evil.

So as I seek to ‘let love be genuine’ I am called to HATE the sin that I find in my life!

This is where the gospel comes in -  Jesus is a Saviour who saves sinners.  I do not rely on some internal goodness to overcome my evil – I turn to Jesus who has overcome all evil.  This is good news, not only for me, but for those in every other list – the grace of God is great enough to wash  away the evil of sexual sin, abortion, divorce, malice, covetousness and unrighteousness.  Even the abuser, the terrorist and ISIS are invited to be redeemed by faith in Christ.

But there are two sides to genuine love, not only what we hate exceedingly, but what we desire deeply.

III. Hold Fast (Cleave) To What is Good

The old translations used the word CLEAVE and that’s a good word – because this word comes from the idea of marriage.  We so desire the good that we bind it to ourselves.  The word cleave carries the connotation of being bonded, welded or glued to something so that there is no way to separate one from the other.

We are to cleave to what is good!  It is easy for Christians to be known only for what they denounce and reject.  But we are to be equally known for what we affirm and embrace.

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.  Philippians 4:8-9

There are many things in this world that have been created for our enjoyment and to lead us to worship God in thanksgiving.

My desire is that I should be known for what I love and delight in as much as I am known for what I repudiate.  I find in this little verse the command to hate sin in every incarnation – especially when I find it in my own heart and life.  But equally to lay hold of the good that God has made and to delight in these things.

The true Christian should be famous for their happiness, joy and the fullness with which they partake in all the good that God has made – and it is right to be reminded at this point of the words that God spoke at creation over all that he had made… he called it good!

So, Christian LISTEN!  LOOK!  SMELL!  EAT!  TOUCH!  God gave us senses.  So I aim to listen to music and rejoice; to sit on my back porch and watch as many sunsets as I can with joy; to smell the flowers that I cultivate in my garden and to give thanks to God as I eat my grilled chicken!

Let us LOVE and DELIGHT in everything we find that is TRUE, HONORABLE, JUST, PURE, LOVELY, COMMENDABLE, EXCELLENT AND WORTHY OF PRAISE.

Christian, do not be silenced in your repudiation of evil with an argument from love – true love repudiates evil.  But don’t get so caught up in repudiation that you neglect delight.  Perhaps a review of your social media is in order.  Does it reflect ‘Genuine Love’?  Does it reflect both the things you repudiate and the things you delight in?  Does your life reflect both?  I hope, that when people seek to describe you, they can come as quickly to the things that you DELIGHT in and REJOICE over as they can in the things that you HATE and RUPUDIATE.

My Facebook has been alight with articles, op-ed pieces and strangely altered profile pics for the better part of a week now.  As a Canadian pastor, I have lived with and contended with culture on issues of sexual ethics more openly and longer than my American brethren.  But I have been slow to post on this matter.  A couple of years of open polemics have taught me that policies and opinions don’t turn on a dime, and posts made in haste are often the cause of later regret.

So I offer a few thoughts a week late – with the hope that this brief article will provide ballast for your pastoral ship in the rough seas ahead.

1. God is on the throne.

God has NEVER lost control of his universe.  Wrap your mind around this, get it into your heart, pray over it, believe it – and you’ll sleep like Jesus in the bottom of any storm battered boat.

I offer two passages that are a constant help to me when it feels like the world has gone mad.

Isaiah 46:8-11 – Remember this and stand firm, recall it to mind, you transgressors, remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,’ calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country.  I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purpose, and I will do it.

In case you don’t know the context, God is speaking both of judgment and redemption in the book of Isaiah.  I don’t pretend in my pulpit, or in this paper, to understand the secret counsels and purposes of God.  But I stand fast on the fact that nothing has occurred which God did not ordain – not even a 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court.

Proverbs 16:33 – The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord. 

I don’t think I need to take the time to spell this out.  If you believe in the inspiration and authority of scripture like I do, you will recognize that God makes the claim that nothing is random, nothing is chance.  God is in control.

2. Unless you’re ‘post-millennial’ these cultural shifts are to be expected.

The church of a century ago was reeling at the suddenness and ferocity of the Great War.  Most churches of 1915 held some form of ‘Post-Millennialism’, the belief that culture would become progressively more ‘Christianized’ until Christian’s held the majority position, ushering in the second coming of Christ.  The advent of a World War destroyed that confidence – a cursory reading of scripture should have destroyed it before WW1 had the chance.

We are not a ‘post-millennial’ people.  It is going to get dark before the end… really dark.  I’m not ready to call the game yet.  I think the warnings of final Armageddon coming from some parts of America might be premature (and incredibly American-centric – why would God bring Armageddon based on the US decision and not on the Irish decision a month earlier or the Canadian decision years ago).  I would counsel you to pray and preach in the hopes of revival – but realize that even revival is a mixed blessing.  Every awakening has faded, and mingled with genuine conversion are false conversions – yet I cannot help but pray that God might be gracious and merciful to my generation and come down in power.  That is what I pray for, and that is how I preach.

But remember what Paul warned Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:1-5 - But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people.

ARE YOU SUGGESTING THESE ARE THE LAST DAYS?  Yes.  And these last days may extend well beyond your natural life-span, so get some ballast in the bottom of your boat, buckle down to faithful exposition of the Word of God, and preach so that you will not be ashamed if you are called to give an account tomorrow or in forty years for the souls God has entrusted to you.

3. There is not, nor has there ever been, a Christian nation.

We are waking from a strange time in the history of the church – a time of relative peace and complacency; a time when pastors were honoured and respected in the public square.  But there are no Christian nations, there never has been one.  To be a Christian nation, an entire nation would have to love God with all its heart – it would have to govern itself like a theocracy and every citizen would have to be regenerate and submitted to the will of God’s Spirit.

Jesus warned us to expect this.  John 15:18 - If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it has hated you.  Reflecting on the words of Jesus, the apostle John writes in I John 3:13 – Do not be surprised, brothers, that the world hates you.

Yet we seem absolutely astounded that culture has turned on Christian morality.  We seem flummoxed that we are being mocked, ridiculed and treated with contempt.  Get used to it – it’s the default setting of the world.  If your Lord stood before an angry mob bruised, bloody, with Roman spit dripping from his face, you need not expect better treatment.  Even the preachers of the great awakening had to contend with rocks, rotten fruit and hostile crowds.  You’ll survive – or you won’t – but don’t waste your suffering by griping all over Facebook that no one respects your opinion.

4. The answer you should offer when someone asks why you publicly oppose another person’s lifestyle.

This final thought is different from the others.  In some ways it doesn’t fit, but I didn’t have time to construct another article for it (I have sermons to prepare and people to visit).  So take it for what its worth.

I continually hear the question – ‘Who are you to legislate what a person can do with their own body.’  (Or something to that effect.)  I’ve been thinking for a while about this question.  I have an answer.  It’s not an answer that will satisfy the culture, the world, or the liberal church friend that wants to celebrate what scripture won’t.  But I offer it for your peace of mind – an answer that should satisfy you that you are right to stand firm against what scripture stands firm against.

The answer:  You don’t belong to you (Psalm 2:1-6; 24:1-2; Isaiah 40:15-17; Daniel 4:35).  No human being can look at anything in their possession, including themselves and say MINE.  That is the council of scripture.  We are, every one of us, stewards of what God has given.

God has granted me life (Psalm 139:13).  He has granted me certain privileges in life (Proverbs 22:2).  He has granted me both afflictions and joys (Job 1:21).  He has given me an authoritative Word to tell how I should steward what he has granted (2 Timothy 3:16).  And I ignore his counsel at my peril (Romans 14:10-12).

I am not opposing homosexuality because I have no regard for another persons happiness in this life.  I am opposing homosexuality because I have great hope for their happiness in eternity – and God has declared that no one who practices homosexuality will enter the Kingdom of God; but that those who formerly practiced such things can yet be justified in the name of the Lord Jesus (I Corinthians 6:9-11).

Don’t expect them to set down the rocks and rotten eggs when you explain yourself in this way.  But remember you are not trying to convert the culture – you are calling out to individuals – and some will hear and be converted.

So I conclude with a simple call to Bible believing pastors.  Be steady, be faithful, preach the gospel – earnestly, robustly, lovingly, winsomely, passionately.  Present the means of salvation to the world and pray that the Holy Spirit might use it for God’s greater glory.    

Chapter 10 – The Sacrament of Living

Did you make it finally?  For a long time I had the bad habit of starting books and never finishing them.  I had an endless stack of books that I needed to finish.  A few years ago I felt convicted that this wasn’t the best use of the books I had invested in, so I made it a point to mark in the beginning of my books when I began them and often would mark the date I read each chapter.  The practice of keeping all the books I was reading on a particular shelf reminded me of the ones I needed to finish.  And in this manner I have managed to finish a great number of books.

This book on the Pursuit of God has a final chapter worth reading (if you’ve lost your steam along the way, let me encourage you to take in the final chapter).  It addresses a chronic problem in the church today; the separation of life into sacred and secular.

Tozer points out that God makes no such separation, that all of life is intended to be lived for God – Jesus providing us with the perfect example of what this looks like.  I have found tremendous freedom in this knowledge.  This doesn’t mean that I can only ever do things like pray, read my Bible and sing hymns – I am free in Christ to drink deeply of all that life has to offer.  When I ride my bike out into the country, I am able to do this for God’s glory.  When I fire up the barbecue for dinner, this is equally something that can be done for God’s glory.  I can enjoy time with friends and family for his greater glory.  Is there anything that cannot be done for God’s glory?  YES!  Of course, a person cannot sin for the glory of God, so there are certain actions, activities and attitudes that have no place in my life – but none of those things can actually carry through on a promise of joy and peace – sin actually brings about the opposite result – grief and guilt.

But let me offer a caution to you as you discover the freedom to ‘live’ for the glory of God in the job you have and the family you are in.  We cannot simply slap a bumper-sticker on our lives and make it true.  What I mean by that, is that too often people take hold of this sort of teaching and use it as an excuse NOT to be holy, but rather to declare what is common holy.  The upward call of God upon Christians is to live their lives intentionally for his glory – literally with God’s honour and glory at the forefront of our minds.  That means I will go out of my way to obey him, to serve him, and to show my love for him.

Martyn Lloyd-Jones offered a single question as a means for rightly understanding the condition of our heart: “What is your supreme desire?  Are you out for the fleshly carnal results, or do you long to know God and to become more and more like the Lord Jesus Christ?  Are you hungering and thirsting for righteousness?”

Answer this question honestly and you will know whether you are living for the glory of God or if you are simply asking God to bless your indifference to all things holy and living instead for the pursuit of STUFF that will leave you empty in the end.

Thanks for reading along.  I hope you will continue to pick up books that challenge your thinking and lead you into a deeper love and obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ.