Decision Making and the Will of God

Christians want to be in the center of God's will.  Having said that, many decisions are not explicitly spelled out in Scripture.  Such as, should I take this job? Should I move away?  Should I go to this college?  Should I end this dating relationship? The following article highlights some bedrock principles and practical questions that we should seek to apply to our unique situations.

"Decision-making can be a daunting task for anyone, but Christians have the unique advantage of making decisions that are informed by God's Word. To do so, there are at least three factors to consider.

1) You must obey the moral will of God as it is revealed in the Scriptures.

If Scripture prohibits the action in question, your decision is easy: don't do it.  If God's Word says to do something- do it.  "Nevertheless not my will by Yours O Lord" should be the cry of our heart!

Likewise, if one of the options in your choice causes you to neglect something God specifically commands you to do, you are required to make the choice that will allow you to fulfill your biblical obligation. For example, if God requires you to be an active part of a local church (serving, attendance, giving) -- Hebrews 10:25 indicates that He does -- any decision that prohibits you from that is against God's revealed will. In order to uphold God's moral will in your decision making, ask yourself, "What does God's Word say about it?" If it says anything, obey that (1 John 5:3). If it says nothing, you have freedom and do not need to fear missing God's will or sinning against Him (Romans 14:2-6, 22)."  Just remember to apply principles 2 and 3 (below).

Some related questions that one should consider are as follows: I. What does the Bible have to say about this decision?  II. Who can help me better understand what God’s Word says about this decision?  III. Make sure you are not the only one who holds to your interpretation (2 Tim. 2:15).

2) Good decision-making requires that you exercise biblical wisdom. 

Such wisdom comes from a diligent study of God's Word, coupled with God's generous provision. James encourages those who lack wisdom (which is true of all of us) to "ask of God, who gives to all men generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him" (James 1:5). To make wise decisions, you need to gather necessary information, consider all the options carefully, seek godly counsel, and then choose the option that is most sensible (Proverbs 2:1-11).  If you have godly parents you should carefully consider their wisdom/perspective (Eph. 6).  If you have faithful shepherds who know and love God's Word you should seek out their wisdom/perspective (Heb. 13:17).  Spirit-filled Christians (note 1 Peter 2-4; Eph. 5-6; Col. 3-4) are submissive to the God-ordained authority figures in their life (unless those authority figures are giving unbiblical counsel).  God's providence is a wonderful thing to latch n to when making tough decisions."

Other factors one needs to consider are as follows, "Is The Pressure of Time Forcing Me to Make a Premature Decision?  Proverbs 19:2, Also it is not good for a person to be without knowledge, and he who makes haste with his feet errs.  Proverbs 21:5, The plans of the diligent lead surely to advantage, but everyone who is hasty comes surely to poverty.

Related principles to remember are as follows: "1) Beware of the 'once in a lifetime' deal/opportunity and the lure of instant gratification. 2. Don’t let the fear of missing out drive your decision. 3. When in doubt, leave it out."

Sexual Abuse: Why a Biblical Response is Critically Important

If you have friends on FaceBook or people in your Twitter feed who traffic in evangelical scandals, you must be aware that the religious online community is host to some forums where spiritual abuse is always the topic du jour, and some of the regulars who hang out in those neighborhoods have at times—rather aggressively—accused shepherds like Phil Johnson and Hohn Cho of lacking appropriate sympathy for their cause.

So not a few people have asked for clarification regarding whether I (Phil Johnson) am in complete agreement with the article Hohn Cho posted in this space yesterday.  The answer is yes. It's not a totally unqualified yes, but it's a hearty yes to pretty much everything Hohn actually said.

My one qualification: I would say even more. And although Hohn contrasted his opinions with the position taken by Doug Wilson, I don't think Wilson is entirely wrong. (I am also pretty sure Hohn himself doesn't believe Wilson is entirely wrong.)

Let's suppose that Hohn's point of view and Wilson's published remarks represent two points on a spectrum of evangelical opinion, with the spectrum's center exactly midway between the two. The fact is, if you go much further from the center than either of these two men, you'll encounter lots of poisonous passions and dangerous pitfalls lying along that spectrum in both directions. That's not a mere guess; I'm not wildly extrapolating into the realm of pure conjecture. There are, in fact, some extremely noisy people with villainous tendencies at both ends of that spectrum.

On the one side, you have the undeniable fact that there's a disastrous epidemic of both spiritual and sexual abuse in churches across north America—and the guilty parties are usually men in leadership.  Furthermore, that's not really a new phenomenon.

Adding to the scandal and compounding the abuse suffered by victims is a tendency among far too many church leaders to give cover to the perpetrators—sometimes with patently nefarious motives; sometimes because of a willful naïveté; and sometimes out of sheer ineptitude. Whatever the underlying motive, any attempt to sweep such abuses under the rug is a sinister transgression. It is a true and appalling injustice and a blight on the reputation of biblical Christianity.

And whatever instinct might cause someone to try to minimize, deny, or excuse such gross evil is inconsistent with authentic evangelical conviction.

One More Plea for Impartiality in That Virtue We Call 'Justice'

One of my (Pastor Phil Johnson's) main complaints about all the rhetoric touting "social justice" is that most people who use that expression seem to have a patently unbiblical (and therefore unjust)notion of what "justice" entails. Specifically, the suggestion has been made (and seconded) that in order to even the record of past injustices and level the playing field of "privilege," our whole culture (including you and me as individuals) needs to adopt a new kind of favoritism in all the judgments we make.

From now on, they say, the scales of justice need to be tipped in favor of certain ethnicities, gender types, and other disadvantaged people groups. Cisgender white males have to go to the back of the bus. Impartiality isn't what's needed. Reparations are.

That mentality has given birth to a dozen or more hashtags, popular fads, and government policies: Affirmative action. Intersectional theory. #BelieveAllWomen. #CheckYourPrivilege. Don't appropriate the symbols of another culture. Don't be colorblind when it comes to ethnic differences. And whatever you do, don't say #AllLivesMatter. That's now racist.

Note what all those ideas have in common: they spurn even-handed impartiality. In other words. what's happening in the name of racial reconciliation and social justice is the very definition of injustice, because it's a shameless prescription for prejudice.

And again: rigorous impartiality is the sine qua non of true justice.

Scripture says, "You shall not be partial in judgment. You shall hear the small and the great alike" (Deuteronomy 1:17). "You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor" (Leviticus 19:15). "You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice, nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his lawsuit" (Exodus 23:2-3).

THE RISE OF ‘WOKER-THAN-THOU’ EVANGELICALISM

Unless you have been living in seclusion somewhere, you will have noticed that a radical putsch is currently underway to get evangelicals on board with doctrines borrowed from Black Liberation Theology, Critical Race Theory, Intersectional Feminism, and other ideologies that are currently stylish in the left-leaning secular academy. All of these things are being aggressively promoted in the name of “racial reconciliation.” This has suddenly given rise to a popular movement that looks to be far more influential—and a more ominous threat to evangelical unity and gospel clarity—than the Emergent campaign was 15 years ago. The movement doesn’t have an official name yet, but the zealots therein like to refer to themselves as “woke.” Evangelical thought leaders boast of their wokeness and vie with one another to be woker-than-thou.

In many ways, today’s Woke Evangelicals are merely an echo of their Emergent forebears. The central threads of their rhetoric are identical, and many of their goals are similar—starting with their campaign to convince other evangelicals that gospel clarity alone will never reach a hostile culture. To do that, they say, we must strive for postmodern political correctness. We need to try to “make Christianity cool.”Nowadays, that means race must be an issue in practically every subject we deal with. Meanwhile, diversity, tolerance, inclusivity, and a host of other postmodern “virtues” have begun to edge out the actual fruit of the Spirit in the language and conversation of some of our wokest brethren.

The Gospel Coalition (TGC) and Together for the Gospel (T4G) were founded little more than a decade ago to bring Christians together around a shared commitment to the foundational doctrines of gospel truth. Earlier this year both organizations sponsored conferences promoting Woke dogmas. Both of them, for example, paid homage to Dr. Martin Luther King not only as a great champion of civil rights (which he certainly was), but also as an exemplar of gospel truth and authentic Christian conviction (which he emphatically was not). Those of us who don’t believe that kind of “wokeness” reflects biblical integrity have been scolded, shamed, and called racists by key leaders from both organizations.

How Contemporary Worship Music Is Shaping Us—for Better or Worse

I am grateful for the faithful, biblical leadership that Brad S provides as he and our gifted musicians/singers help God's people worship the Lord with songs/hymns of praise.  As one travels around the world and worships you quickly realize that timeless biblical principles govern our corporate worship gatherings (Heb. 10:24-25; Col. 3:16).  

Psalm 150 reminds us that God can be and should be praised with all different kinds of instruments/sounds.  If you doubt this, you really should sign up for the next short missions trip your church takes to India, Africa, or Brazil.  

With that said, the following article is well worth your time.  It is an article that will no doubt lead to much reflection and prayer.  It considers some of the positive and negative ways the contemporary worship music culture has influenced many local church ministries.  It is not a legalistic diatribe against a particular "style" of music.  Instead it is a thorough evaluation of how contemporary worship music is shaping us- for better or worse.  May we do all that we can to worship and serve the Lord "in spirit and in truth."

"It was roughly 50 years ago that young people started bringing their guitars to church. Converts from the hippie culture, known as Jesus People, strummed a chord that would echo around the world. Modern worship was born.

In the ensuing decades, the phenomenon known as “praise and worship music” or “contemporary worship music” has seen its share of developments. By no means a monolithic movement, it has nevertheless coalesced into a highly recognizable sound and ethos, as demonstrated by the numerous parodies that poke fun at its most predictable features. The dust has settled after the so-called “worship wars” of the 1980s and ’90s, and it appears that contemporary worship has emerged victorious in many spheres of evangelical life.

Now that contemporary worship music has become not only a major feature of evangelical identity in North America but also a multimillion-dollar industry, it’s worth asking an often neglected question: How does contemporary worship music shape us?

Worship Music as Sociological Phenomenon

Monique Ingalls, assistant professor of music at Baylor University, tackles this question in her book, Singing the Congregation: How Contemporary Worship Music Forms Evangelical Community. Focusing on the decade from 2007 to 2017, she examines modern praise through sociological lenses. Ingalls analyzes five gatherings in which this type of singing plays a prominent role: worship concerts (ch. 1), student conferences (ch. 2), one local congregation in Nashville, Tennessee (ch. 3), public praise parades (ch. 4), and the virtual “community” of online “worship-video” creators and consumers (ch. 5).

Though these social gatherings differ from one another in many respects, one thing unites them: the centrality of contemporary worship music. “For evangelicals, the use of contemporary worship music immediately marks an activity as ‘worship’” (22). Therefore, Ingalls reasons, the act of engaging in modern worship singing produces a sort of “congregation” out of gatherings not traditionally thought of as such. This has deep, often unnoticed, effects on how Christians understand worship and the church.

The main value of Singing the Congregation is its thorough description of the world that contemporary worship music has created.  Ingalls’s book is a work of musicology. Each chapter is full of anthropologist-style “field notes” and insights culled from interviews with worshipers and music ministers alike. As such, the main value of Singing the Congregation is its thorough description of the world that contemporary worship music has created. For that reason, even if musicology is a new field for you, I recommend this book to pastors, worship leaders, and anyone else with an interest in the modern worship movement—fans and critics alike.

To be sure, readers will need to look elsewhere for sustained analysis of the lyrical themes found in modern praise songs. Ingalls’s focus is on worship music as sociological phenomenon, so there is little here in the way of theological interaction with worship lyrics. Still, Ingalls’s in-depth account of how contemporary worship shapes evangelical life proves the axiom that “the medium is the message.” In other words, contemporary worship music not only reflects evangelical values and convictions about how to engage with God, it also profoundly influences those values and convictions.

For me, as a church elder, song leader, and hymn writer who “grew up” musically in a variety of modern worship settings, Ingalls’s book provoked me to reflect on the unintended consequences of contemporary worship music. Rather than proceed with a traditional book review, it may be more useful to my readers to share some ways in which Ingalls’s work has prompted my own thinking.

So here are four areas of reflection, which I invite you to consider with me.

The Final Authority, Period.

"Anyone who faithfully and correctly proclaims the Word of God will speak with authority.

It is not our own authority. It is not even the ecclesiastical authority attached to the office of a pastor or teacher in the church. It is a still greater authority than that. Insofar as our teaching accurately reflects the truth of Scripture, it has the full weight of God’s own authority behind it. That is a staggering thought, but it is precisely how 1 Peter 4:11 instructs us to handle biblical truth: “If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God.”

Of course that is a profound threat to the tolerance of a society that loves its sin and thinks of compromise as a good thing. To speak boldly and declare that God has spoken with finality is neither stylish nor politically correct. But if we truly believe the Bible is the Word of God, how can we handle it any other way?

Many modern evangelicals, cowed by post-modernism’s demand for latitudinarianism, claim they believe Scripture, but then shy away from proclaiming it with any authority. They are willing to give lip service to the truth of Scripture, but in practice they strip it of its authority, treating it as just another opinion in the great mix of post-modern ideas.

Why I Signed the Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel

"This summer I met with a group of concerned Christian leaders in Dallas, Texas in order to discuss the issues surrounding the in vogue movement known as social justice. As we discussed the issues, it became plain and clear that this is one of the most confusing and potentially dangerous agendas to face the church in recent history. For that reason, we engaged in a project to collectively formulate a theological statement that would address these cultural matters in love and stand for the pure gospel of Jesus.

So, why did I engage in this project and attach my name to it? I would like to attempt an answer to that question.  I signed this statement for four important reasons:

For`1) the Gospel.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is the only hope for fallen sinners. All throughout history, there have been attempts to redefine the gospel, to malign the gospel, to subtract from the gospel, and to include additions to the gospel. In a time when people have so much access to knowledge—we continue to lack truth for the brokenness of depraved humanity. This pattern of life is not because truth doesn’t exist, but because so many ideas are elevated above God’s truth and people continue to suppress God’s truth leaving broken sinners confused.

Our hope is the clear sounding of the gospel. We must be heralds of truth—not political ideas or cultural trends—faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of Christ. If lost and blind sinners will see—it must be through light shining into their darkness. When social ideas and constructions replace truth, it runs the risk leading people into further darkness and oppression. Therefore, we must stand for the gospel of Jesus Christ and deliver the only message that will bring oppressed and broken sinners to a saving relationship with God—that’s the message of the cross of Jesus Christ. We must never forget that even the learned Jews with the oracles of God and the covenants lost the gospel.

2) The Call to Contend for the Faith.

In Jude 3, we find him urging believers to “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.” The word “contend” carries an interesting meaning. The word is “ἐπαγωνίζομαι” which is connected to “ἀγωνίζομαι” from where we derive the English word agonize. It means to exert intense effort. The idea is to put forth a ready and serious defense for the faith. It’s clear from context that the word “faith” is in reference to the saving faith of Christ through the gospel.

Far too often people are unwilling to stand for the gospel publicly because they are afraid of rebuke, criticism, and the loss of support for their ministry. Many people are willing to work long hours on their ministry strategy in order to protect their brand and their image, but they’re unwilling to subject themselves to heavy criticism that could potentially cause their brand to lose support in the end. Interestingly enough, Jude never says to protect your ministry strategy. The calling for Christians is to contend for the gospel. Jesus never promised us an easy life without trouble. In fact, he promised us much worse.

Because of 3) The Perspicuity and Sufficiency of Scripture Demands it.

Intersectionality — A Brave New Religion

"In the recent social justice conference that was held just before the 2019 G3 Conference, I was given the assignment to speak on the subject of intersectionality. I’ve recently written on the subject of intersectionality (SBC and intersectionality, liberation theology, sufficiency of Scripture, why I signed the SS&J).

As I explain in the sermon, not only is it the building blocks for a brave new religion, it’s absolutely a flat denial of the sufficiency of Scripture. Do we really need to attach “woke” to the church of Jesus Christ? Is it really necessary to connect “social justice” with the gospel? Should Christians be laboring to make leftist political strategies sexy and cool? In order to live under the banner of the gospel as a slave of King Jesus—is there another manifesto or document or book that’s necessary to achieve God’s glory among his people in a broken sin cursed culture other than the Bible?

With all of the competing voices, books, conferences, and blog posts being written that suggest otherwise, I stand firm on my position that the Bible is sufficient and nothing else is necessary to achieve God’s will for his people in this fallen world. We don’t need to replace theology with victimology or the Scriptures with sociology. However, we’re living in a time when intersectionality and social justice tactics are being employed as a new church growth model.

Five Truths About the Holy Spirit

"Jesus said: 'I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you' (John 16:7). Now, I don’t want to bring cold coals to Newcastle by giving you information with which you are already familiar, so let me just briefly give some background on this verse. You know that the Greek word translated here as “Helper” is parakletos. In its technical form, it has a legal dimension; it refers to one who would be an advocate. In its wider context, it speaks of comfort, of protection, of counsel, and of guidance. Jesus also spoke of the Spirit as the Helper in John 14 and introduced Him as “the Spirit of truth” (14:17; 16:13).

I think it best for me to simply say a number of things concerning the identity of this Helper with little embellishment.

First, we need to notice that the Holy Spirit is a unique person and not simply a power or an influence. He is spoken of as “He,” not as “it.” This is a matter of import because if you listen carefully to people speaking, even within your own congregations you may hear the Holy Spirit referenced in terms of the neuter. You may even catch yourself doing it. If you do, I hope you will bite your tongue immediately. We have to understand that the Spirit of God, the third person of the Trinity, is personal. As a person, He may be grieved (Eph. 4:30), He may be quenched in terms of the exercise of His will (1 Thess. 5:19), and He may be resisted (Acts 7:51).

Second, the Holy Spirit is one both with the Father and with the Son.In theological terms, we say that He is both co-equal and co-eternal. When we read the whole Upper Room Discourse, we discover that it was both the Father and the Son who would send the Spirit (John 14:16; 16:7), and the Spirit came and acted, as it were, for both of Them. So the activity of the Spirit is never given to us in Scripture in isolation from the person and work of Christ or in isolation from the eternal will of the Father. Any endeavor to think of the Spirit in terms that are entirely mystical and divorced from Scripture will take us down all kinds of side streets and eventually to dead ends.

Third, the Holy Spirit was the agent of creation. In the account of creation at the very beginning of the Bible, we are told: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters” (Gen. 1:1-2). The Hebrew word translated as “Spirit” here is ruach, which also can mean “breath.” The ruach elohim, “the Breath of the Almighty,” is the agent in creation. It is not the immateriality of the Spirit that is in view here, but rather His power and energy; the picture is of God’s energy breathing out creation, as it were, speaking the worlds into existence, putting the stars into space. Thus, when we read Isaiah 40:26 and the question is asked, “Who created these?” we have the answer in Genesis 1:2—the Spirit is the irresistible power by which God accomplishes His purpose.

Sola Scriptura: The Heart of the Reformation (and the True Christian Faith)

"Within a year of posting his Ninety-Five Theses, Martin Luther was summoned to appear before Cardinal Cajetan to be examined for his accusations against the Roman Catholic Church’s theology and practice. When the Cardinal pressed him on the issue of the church’s authority, Luther responded, “The truth of Scripture comes first. After that is accepted one may determine whether the words of men can be accepted as true.”[i] Now, Luther was not discrediting the words of men completely, rather, he was claiming that, far and above anything or anyone else, Holy Scripture was first and foremost. This led to the development of Sola Scriptura—“Scripture alone.” But in order to examine this principle within the context of the Reformation, we first need to explore the doctrine of Scripture itself. For the rest of this article, we will examine four foundational claims regarding the Word of God: its inspiration, inerrancy, authority, and sufficiency.

The Issue of Inspiration- The most dynamic and explicit passage in all of Scripture about the nature of the Bible’s own divine inspiration comes in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. The Apostle Paul writes:  “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

In the Greek, the word theopneustos is used to describe how Scripture came to be; it was literally “God-breathed”. It was as if the Lord took a deep breath in, and then exhaled Holy Scripture. Further, the means by which God brought Scripture about was through the pens of human writers—“men [who] spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21). Both the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant Reformers did not disagree about divine inspiration. What was and is still contested, however, is the content of the revelation.

Paul’s use of the word “all” in 2 Timothy 3:16 leads us to examine: What books of the Bible are contained in the “all” of Scripture? This is the question of the canon. The word “canon” comes from the Greek word kanōn, meaning “measuring rod”, which came to be used in speaking of a “rule” or “standard”. And in the most general sense, the canon is “the authoritative books that God gave his corporate church.”[ii] Historically, the accepted canon consists of 66 books—39 Old Testament books (Genesis to Malachi) and 27 New Testament books (Matthew to Revelation).

During the Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church asserted that there were additional books inspired by God, which belonged in the canon. What came to be known as the Apocrypha consisted of the books of Tobit, Judith, the Additions to Esther, the Additions to Daniel, the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (also called Sirach), Baruch (Hebrew for Blessed), the Letter of Jeremiah, and 1st and 2nd Maccabees. In response to the Reformers’ claims that many of the Catholic Church’s practices were unbiblical, the Council of Trent (1545-1563) canonized the Apocrypha, thus deeming it to be the inspired and authoritative Word of God. But after 1,500 years of being absent from the canon, did the Apocrypha suddenly deserve to be included? Certainly not.