And as these differences of opinion between Christians have arisen on these political matters, some of us might be (or have been) tempted to simply chalk these disagreements up to the typical culprits of divisions in Church in other matters, such as biblical ignorance or theological subterfuge. In these non-political cases, we would make our claims based on our biblical arguments and theological understandings and be quick to dismiss as wrong anyone who has a differing opinion. We would then view these political issues in the same manner that we view those other issues that are contained within the Church and its theology, and we would readily divide ourselves further with the same power of conviction.

However in these political matters, we should not be so quick to judge and to divide, for I believe that there is something else at work in our time that distinguishes this battle of political opinion from disagreements and divisions of the Church in times past. For, though it is almost cliché to say such a thing, I do in fact believe that we are presently living in a unique and transitional time in our country. It is not a time of outward revolution or change in government (at least in structure), but it is a radical and visible change in the moral climate of our country. And it is changing quickly.

Concerning this matter, there is an excellent article on the Gospel Coalition’s site, and the author makes a succinct but strikingly accurate summary of the personal moral axioms of the present generation:

1. God made me this way.
2. He wouldn’t deny my natural desires.
3. And I don’t have to explain myself to you or anyone else.

By looking at these statements that are increasingly depicting the convictions of persons in our society, it is not difficult to see how the moral climate is changing so rapidly. If a person, whatever his personal vice, convinces himself to believe that he was born / created a particular way and that God would not to create him in such a way so as to frustrate his natural desires, then it is only “natural” for him to practice those things and to confer his convictions upon others in the society with similar and different personal vices. We see this perhaps most clearly in the self-righteous mantras of tolerance and the banding together of licentious groups who would otherwise have no association with one another excepting for their unity in silencing whatever opposition exists that preaches that their desires and practice of them are immoral and wrong.

They not only do such things but give approval to those who practice them (Romans 1:32).

For, as is also becoming increasingly apparent, the human conscience is a fickle thing and is only as good as the knowledge upon which it rests. And as this rebellion against the knowledge of revealed morality grows, it only fuels the suppression of God and his revelation while giving greater and greater credence to the licentious circles who mutually pat each other on the back. It a spiraling circle into moral decay that is garnering strength exponentially, and nothing short of divine intervention will slow or alter its course.

A shift in the people is a shift in the government
It is upon this realization that I base my aforementioned belief that we are in fact living in a very unique and transitional time in the history of our nation. It is also for this reason that I believe that we as Christians are having trouble coming to a consensus on such political issues as Amendment One. For as the government that is “by the people and for the people” starts reflecting the changing will and morality of the people, so too will there be a transition in the political regime. No, leaders will not be forcefully overthrown nor will new foundational documents be written, but in a country where political power is derived from the people, the country goes as the people go. As the country is turning person-by-person against revealed morality and to “whatever is right in his own eyes,” the government is shifting from one in which Christians can participate and have influence into a “tolerant” dictatorship in which they cannot. And as we shift from this present regime to the future regime, the debates over the Christian’s place in government will lessen and lessen, not by choice, but by the force of the will of the majority.

At the present time, some may rejoice that revealed morality triumphed in the passage of Amendment One, but it is hard to imagine that there is anyone who believes that that amendment will stand for long. It was a last ditch effort by the diminishing majority who believe in universal morality, and as their number becomes smaller, there will come proposals to repeal it. It is not a matter of “if” but “when.”

As these times come upon us (and I sincerely believe that they are), we all will have to reconsider our roles as Christians in the government of the United States. There was a time in our history when Christians held considerable sway over the direction of the country, and it was then rightly seen as a Christian duty to conform our laws to revealed morality. But the time is coming, probably within the next decade or two, when the Christian’s part in the governance of this country will be brought to naught. What will be our response in those days? Will we persist on politically as a picketing group with our own suppressed rights, or will we retreat back into the quietness and peace of living out our lives? Will we attempt to regain control of this country “under God,” or will we become as the Church under a hostile dictator?

We, the Church, will have to come to terms with these questions and with others that have yet to be asked, and I am curious as to how we will collectively respond. Nevertheless, despite our response, there are undoubtedly terrible times ahead, yet, even so, I cannot help but believe that the change in America will be for our good, whether we see it as good or not.

What are the ramifications of the outcome? The immediate secular ramifications seem small, but the outcome has the potential to have much larger ones in the future. For while the failure of the amendment to be ratified does not change the fact that homosexual unions are still illegal in the state of North Carolina, it does leave open the possibility that the state’s courts could rule the present law unconstitutional and effectively repeal it.

But, honestly, I am not too concerned about the secular ramifications at the present or in the future. The one thing, however, that I am concerned about and have been trying to wrap my brain around since this debate began is how the failure of this amendment to pass would affect the Church. And with all of the strong and super-passionate support for the amendment from the pulpits, from the seminaries, from congregations, and from various and sundry blogs, you would think that I would have a laundry list of negative effects of the amendment’s failure to pass upon the Church.

But I don’t.

What I have read, over and over again, are statements that biblical marriage is between a man and a woman and that homosexuality is sin. Well, yes, and I do not think many who have read the Bible honestly would argue with that. But, is it not also biblically true that salvation is of the Lord, we are to love our neighbors as ourselves, Jesus was born of a virgin, and lust is the spiritual equivalent of adultery? Of course it is, but why are we not seeking legislation to affirm these things? Do you not know that the sin of unbelief is far more treacherous and immoral than the sin of homosexuality? Why are we not drawing up legislation against not believing in Jesus Christ?

The chief motivator, I believe, behind this evangelical push for the amendment’s ratification has little to do with biblical conviction or the supposed negative consequences to the Church, and much more to do with our personal desire for it to pass. We simply do not want homosexuals to be recognized by our state as married. We do not want to have to explain to our children why we believe that Mr. and Mr. Smith are living in sin, and why we believe and live differently as Christians. We do not want to live in a generation where the Family Channel’s slogan is “A New Kind of Family,” and where we can accidentally plan our dream Disney vacation during Gay Week. We simply do not want to live in a generation and a country where everyone does what is right in his own eyes.

And, honestly, I do not think that there is anything wrong with these desires. Despite the means, there is something admirable in wanting to live in a generation and a country that fears God and hallows his name. Yet, there comes a point when we as the people of God must swallow the hard pill of reality and realize that we are not living in such a generation or a country. Perhaps there was a time in the history of our country when that was true, but it is not this time, and no amount of legislation will bring it about. We who have such convictions and desires are quickly becoming the minority, and while there may be (in our eyes) a small victory with the possible ratification of Amendment One, it will be a short-lived one. For this country, for good or bad, is governed by the morality of the majority, and the passage of Amendment One today will only likely lead to a repeal in an Amendment Two.

This is not to say that the failure of the amendment to pass would not have consequences upon the Church, but those consequences are no different than those of living in a wicked society. Those consequences are inevitable. For whether or not the amendment passes, the growing, wicked world around us will always view Christians as intolerant, self-righteous, hypocritical, etc., and, with or without the passing of the amendment, it is very plausible that sermons, evangelism, and theological discussions will one day in the near future become hate speech with legal consequences.

And, unfortunately, there is little that can be done about it.

I know this because Jesus promised us that we would suffer. I know this because the apostle Paul told us that our suffering is a gift to us from Christ. And, now, despite the outcome of today’s vote, the direction our country seems determined. We may comfort ourselves today with the wall we have erected against the coming tsunami, but that wall will scarcely hold it once it has reached the shore. Our only course of action, I believe, is to pray and to become the Church we were called to be. For in that time, buildings will fall and programs will cease; choirs will not sing, and Awanas will be but a faint memory. In that time, all we will have is the Church, and that time will not be the time to figure out what the Church truly is.

For though it is more than evident that the institution of marriage is far older than any secular government and was instituted by no one other than God himself, the fact remains that as a society today, marriage is chiefly a secular institution. While others have said that marriage is an institution created by God and recognized by the state, it is not that simple. For if that were true, no one could bypass the church and be married in a courthouse by a magistrate, and there would be no secular ramifications for being married, except for perhaps the changing of one’s legal name. Yet, these things do exist and so demonstrate that the once religious institution of marriage has evolved into something that can elude religion entirely.

Therefore, when we go to the ballot box to cast our lot with others regarding “marriage” in the state of North Carolina, we are doing so in the efforts of preserving or changing a state-based institution not a religious one. And as such, the outcome has little to no consequences for the Church, for the state has no power over her. Christ alone is her Lord, and no vote consisting of the righteous and the wicked will ever sway his decree.

As for the state itself, I have long put aside the vision of the Separatists who longed to establish Christ’s government in the New World, and have accepted the Christ-given role for the Church to be light in the darkness of the world (including wicked governments and their citizens). As for that role, no piece of legislation can ever remove it, nor will any piece of legislation ever promote it. It is our duty to be that city on the hill, and only we ourselves can deter or uphold that role. In fact, the light that we are called to be shines all the more brighter when the world around us makes itself darker, and we should see these times as opportunities to shine, not through moral legislation and law-based, prescriptive righteousness, but through love, peace, and acceptance knowing that God alone can change the heart of the homosexual, et al, not Christian political activism.

That said, what should the Christian’s role be in the Amendment One vote? Some would say that you are not doing your Christian duty by not voting for it. I beg to differ with that assertion, for whether you vote or not, nowhere is it prescribed by Christ to take active duty in the governance of a country. Yes, we should cry out against gross injustices (e.g. abortion), but chiming in on the definitions of terms of a secular institution is hardly a gross injustice. It may be sinful to grant the benefits / costs of state-sanctioned marriage to the union between same-sex couples, but God will judge those matters not the Church. For whether or not the amendment passes, homosexuality and homosexual practices will continue to exist, and, if the current trend persists, will continue to grow. Our duty should chiefly be as it has ever been, to love each other as Christ loved the Church, and to do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith (cf. Gal. 6:10).

Perhaps if we were to do our duty as the Church, these things would not be an issue. Perhaps if we were the light we were called to be, Christ would draw more to himself. Yet we as the Church have become more legislators of morality than we have practicers of it. We have, as many outside the Church, looked to government and the law as our salvation, rather than to the righteousness and the power of Christ. As Paul so clearly put it, the law has no power to save, and its adherence alone only leads to condemnation. And while we might prevail to “circumcise” the homosexuals of this land, we have only given ourselves reason to boast in their “flesh” (cf. Gal. 6:13). If, perhaps, we were to hone the energy that we put into secular law-making and divert it toward the sanctity of marriage within the Church itself, our divorce rates would not mirror those of the world.

1. What part will this ammendment have upon the purposes of the Church?
This question assumes much, and so first I should seek to remove some of those assumptions. There are some who feel / believe that a purpose of the church is to sanctify the land in which it resides. In other words, the land should be governed by “Christian” law, so to speak. For when we debate these things, it is no debate how the Bible views homosexual relationships. They are “unnatural”, an “abomination”, and are full of sin. In other words, they stand against God’s design for human sexuality. Those who profess to be Christians who claim otherwise, obviously do not heed the Words upon which their faith is supposedly based. There are also the clear arguments from what is referred to as “Natural Law,” but that does not need to be addressed at this time.

However, when heeding this truth from the Scriptures, how does that make us respond as the church to members of our state who are outside the church? In other words, was the Law of Christ designed to govern those outside of Christ as well as those who are in Christ and to make the church his enforcers, or was it designed to govern the church alone? And if the Law of Christ does govern the state, what effect would that have upon the church?

To answer the first, I believe that (contrary to the opinion of many) that Word of Christ is designed for the People of Christ. To put it another way, I believe that the Law of Christ is designed to govern those outside of Christ as much as the law of Honduras is designed to govern American citizens. Though this is a poor illustration, my point is that the Law of Christ, which includes that axiom, “Love others as I have loved you,” is only fully applicable to those whom Christ has loved to the point of his death and substitution (assuming, of course, Particular Redemption).

This point is further shown in Scripture in that the Law of Christ is demanded of those who have died with Christ and to that Other Law, and not vice versa. In other words, we who are in Christ are not saved by binding ourselves to this thing which we call the Law of Christ by keeping it, but we are bound to it after we have been redeemed. Indeed, it is futile to attempt to keep such a Law apart from the Power of Christ residing in us.

As for the church’s duty in the state, Christ said we are to be a city on hill, shining out light into the darkness of this world. Paul puts it in clearer language saying:

I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people–for kings and all who are in high positions, so that we may lead a peaceful and quite life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1Tim. 2:1-4).

To put it differently, I believe that Christ and Paul are both commenting on the nature of the church and its effectiveness in these texts, and that they are both saying the same thing, namely that with regards to the outside world and its governance, the church is to be actively praying for it and its leaders, but not acting as its legislators. The church’s duty, therefore, is to live righteously itself, even within the world it resides, so as to be a light of Christ to it. This manner of living is designed to manifest itself in quietness and peace, which also carries with it the ability to draw those who are in darkness into the light.

To ask a simple question that corresponds with the text from Paul, How would you characterize the politically active portions of the church, particularly with regards to marriage legislation? Would it quiet and peaceful? Would it be as a city on a hill? Or is more after the liking of every other secular political institution and activist? Personally, I feel that we as the church collectively are characterized by the latter more than the former.

Which brings us back to our main question, “What part does this ammendment have upon the purposes of the Church?” In the light of these texts, it seems as though the effects upon the purposes of the church have less to do with whether or nor it passes and more to do with how we respond in the mean time and afterward. Will we be that light upon the hill that shines quietly and brilliantly into the darkness, or will we be just another secular voice being drowned in the sea of secular opinion? For I fear that morality in this country will fail despite the Church’s greatest arguments and activism, and all that will remain afterward is how we have conducted ourselves.

More thoughts to come…

These are some of the questions I have been asking myself for years regarding the “Baptist” title. Baptist is one of those names that has become so broad and has developed so many connotations that it is hardly helpful as a name any more. Generally, the Baptist name encompasses almost anyone who professes Christ who does not hold to infant baptism. Apart from that, one can be Calvinistic or Arminian in his soteriology, covenantal, dispensational, etc., in his view of the New Covenant, charismatic or cessationist with regard to the gifts of the Spirit, congregational or elder-ruled with regard to ecclesiology, etc., etc., etc. In other words, the only thing that holds Baptists together is the dryness of their infants.

And that is really important to some Baptists. Some Baptists even put Believer’s Baptism up there with the Trinity and the deity of Christ. But that’s not me. For me, Believer’s baptism is important. It possibly shows one’s view of the Old and New Covenants, it shows his interpretations of certain texts, etc. Even so, it is not a doctrine of the first order to me. It’s not even a doctrine of the second order. So then, why do I continue to identify myself by a label that is not a first or second order doctrine to me? Good question.

Additionally, and probably more significantly, is the association that the Baptist name brings. Without naming names, there are persons who label themselves Baptists with whom I would never sit and eat. Conversely, there are those who don’t label themselves Baptists with whom I would gladly (and do) sit and eat. So why categorize myself with those who I believe are apostate and distance myself from those who I believe are my brothers?

But then there comes the problem of what to call myself. Having no name is not an option. I suppose I could join a church of a different denomination and use that title, but then that doesn’t really address the issue. In fact, it places me in the exact same position I am now, except with different positive and negative associations and different doctrinal differences.

Going back to the question of doctrines and their order of significance, what doctrine or name best identifies the religion of those who follow Jesus Christ? Jesus Christ, of course. Therefore, until I find sufficient reason to be otherwise, I’ll call myself a Christian*. And if anyone wishes for me to elaborate, I gladly will.

And having attended a school and through it becoming familiar with it, I have to say that the presentation of the controversy has been typically one-sided, namely coming from those who are younger who have a general animosity toward those who are older. And though this is not always the case, it is typically the case. Those who are in the seminaries are usually those who are younger, and therefore they reside in a different generation and in a different understanding of the world around them. Therefore, when they hear that the “old folks” in the church do not like the new music, they immediately conclude that they are old fogies who are set in their ways and who are not as “spiritual” and spiritually discerning as they are.

While it is possible that this may be true (with hip speakers like Mark Driscoll inadvertently perpetuating the stereotype), it is possible that it is not true, and that the young in the church have misunderstood and have unfairly categorized those who are older.

The problem that we have now is that there has been a lack of godly conversation over the matter. Instead, both groups have come to the table armed with their presuppositions and callously ignore the sentiments and convictions of the other. Some do it through blunt and unChristlike speech and actions, and others do it through quiet and unmoving resolve, piously presuming that they are above it all. No matter the nature of the response or its appearance, both are wrong and both avoid getting to the heart of the matter.

Having been by Providence born into the younger generation of opinion, allow me to offer some food for thought for those who are younger that I came by through conversations with those are of the older generation. I will do it through the structure of possible “myths”:

Myth 1: Contemporary Music is Opposed Solely upon the Ground of Poor Lyrics:
While it can certainly be argued that a lot of that which we call “contemporary” is doctrinally lacking, some of it is not–perhaps even that which is played in Sunday morning services. We, in our generation, feel that doctrine is the only thing that matters in music, therefore proper lyrics can form in any genre of music. Therefore, to “compromise,” older hymns are ported to newer music upon the presumption that it will cure the ills of the controversy. This is not necessarily the case.

Myth 2: The Music Controversy is Based Solely on the Grounds of Music Preference
Many of us who are younger (and therefore have not seen very much) presume that the crux of the music controversy is a matter of preference of music types and nothing more. We presume that since the type of music does not by itself have an effect on us and our spirits that it does not have the same effect upon others.

One of the most striking observations that I have made when talking to others on the “other side of the fence” is the deep association that they have with certain types of music and godlessness. These, having lived through the sixties and seventies, hear an electric guitar and immediately have brought to their minds such things as drugs, fornication, etc., and when they hear these things in “worship,” their very souls are conflicted within them.

Myth 3:There is no Resolution to the Music Controversy
I have heard some pretty horrible things from the younger side when the music controversy is brought up, the apex of which is the sentiment, “The older folks will die off one day.” I’ve rarely heard this sentiment in those words, but the spirit of it is there in the hearts of some. I hear things like, “The church is dying,” and the blame has been cast solely upon the shoulders of those who have real convictions with regard to particular types of music.

Maybe the church is dying (by that meaning a particular congregation), and maybe it is because of the style of music. Often the blame for it is placed upon the older generation and their unwillingness to “get with the times,” but let me offer a different view of the same situation. Perhaps it’s the not the older generation who is causing the church to die, but maybe it is the younger generation abandoning the church because the style of “worship” does not suit their tastes. Maybe the American consumer mentality has infected a particular congregation to the the extent that they are willing to leave a body of believers because the style of music on Sunday mornings is not meeting their entertainment needs. For them, it is not a matter of conviction, but it is a matter of preference, and it is their preference that drives them not their convictions.

Concluding Thoughts
I know that what I have to offer here might seem to some to be a simplification of an issue in the church that has been oversimplified. I pray that it’s not. My point is simply to step back and view the controversy from a different set of eyes so as to bring up thoughtful discussion, resolution, and healing.

In this day and time and in this culture, there are many things to be divided over, but music is not one of them. And when it comes to such matters, I think the apostle Paul was quite clear on it in Romans 14. To put it briefly, when it comes to matters of congregational fellowship and activity, those who are stronger in certain areas are called to capitulate to those who are weaker by their conscience and convictions.

Not wanting to wrongly label certain groups, but, for argument’s sake, let’s say that in the music controversy the younger generation is the stronger and the older generation is the weaker because of their convictions regarding certain types of music. What if there is a God-fearing older woman whose soul is genuinely troubled at the sound of certain music to the point that she cannot bear to come to church services on Sunday any more. What should the response of the stronger be? Should it be, "Well, she’s probably not saved any way," "She’s stuck in her religion and legalism," or should it be, "Mrs. Jones–a dear saint, sister, and lover of God in Christ–is deeply troubled by this type of music. We love her, and so does Christ, therefore let’s engage in dialog with her so that we can know her heart"? Just a thought.

Assuming that I am not wholly wicked (which is sometimes a shaky assumption), what is it about "church” on Sunday mornings that causes my heart at times to shy away from it rather than be drawn to it? What merit (if any) is there for this disposition of my heart?

Sunday as Weekly Service
One aspect of Sunday mornings that has troubled my heart is the tacit (sometimes not) belief and conviction that Sunday morning is somehow more holy and more important than any other time in the week. It is something for which we are implored to “ready our hearts,” and to “give our best” as though the pinnacle of Christian existence is vested in a Sunday morning time slot. The way I have heard it described by many, it is almost as though it is tolerable to have any state of mind or heart whatsoever at any other time insofar as that state is changed in sufficient time to one that is “prepared for worship.”

In light of this, it is hardly surprising to hear language in a Sunday morning church service that describes a particular locale or building as “the house of the Lord,” and the services rendered in that locale (be it singing, tithes and offerings, or attentiveness) as “sacrifices” or “holy duties.” For the church today is to some tantamount to the temple of the Old Covenant, therefore we exhorted to act as though we were meeting God in his holy place, for we are (by our accounts) meeting God in his holy place.

If we view Sunday morning in this light, it is not difficult to perceive why certain aspects of Sunday morning are at the forefront of Christian debate (as least in our country). For when one speaks about a particular church, the first comments about it are not usually their love for one another or the vibrancy of their fellowship, but it is their style of music, the eloquence of their preacher, and the musical ability (or disability) of their choir. The “selling point” of any church is its Sunday service, and if that is lacking in some way according to our personal preferences, we consider it a poor church not worth our presence though it may be a mile from our home.

What is telling about those aspects of Sunday mornings which we find to be of utmost importance is that we would be hard-pressed to validate the worth to which ascribe them from the pages of Scripture. Of course we will find each of them in the Scriptures (well, except for choirs and service dramas), but their importance is not relegated to practice at a particular time (viz. Sunday mornings), but they are to characterize the life of the saint and the continual disposition of the church (i.e. the people of God not the building). Concerning music and its role in the life of the saint, the apostle Paul writes:

Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, making the best use of the time, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ (Eph. 5:15-21).

Now, the meaning of the apostle is clear. He does not have in mind a once-a-week service, but he has in the mind the entire life of the Christian and the church universal (i.e. all those who have been bought with the blood of Christ). For he commands, “Look carefully how you walk,” not, “Look carefully how you meet on Sunday mornings.” This manner by which we are to walk (i.e. live our lives) is to be one that is a continual filling of the Spirit so that we are so filled with the Spirit that it overflows in the singing of “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.”

Now, this disposition and practice may certainly be done on Sunday morning gatherings of the church, but it is certainly not to be limited to Sunday mornings nor is Sunday to be viewed as the apex of these things. Sunday mornings should be a representation of how the church has conducted herself throughout the week not a formal event for which we dress up our bodies and our conduct into that which it was not before.

Sunday is not the Sabbath
One of the more puzzling beliefs concerning Sunday to me is this belief that Sunday is the new Sabbath and that Jesus abolished Saturday (i.e. the seventh day) as the Sabbath. And though it would be difficult to pinpoint where this belief concerning Sunday arose (be it in the catholic church or Chick-fil-a), it is more difficult to pinpoint where this belief arises from in Scripture. Yes, we do find in Scripture that the saints met together on Sunday (i.e. the Lord’s Day) as a celebration of his Resurrection, but this is hardly proof that this was viewed by the church as the new Sabbath replacing the old. If anything, it is evidence of the church’s view that the Sabbath concerned those who were in the Old Covenant under the old creation, and the Lord’s Day is a celebration and a recognition of the New Covenant and the New Creation inaugurated by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead—the Firstborn from the dead in the recreation of all things.

Indeed, as Douglas Wilson pointed out, being that the Sabbath was originally an ordinance of the first creation and was later instituted into the Old Covenant, the only thing that would abolish or change such an ordinance would be a New Creation. And not coincidentally, this is exactly what we find in the Lord’s Day, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ—the inauguration of the New Creation. Furthermore, it is for this reason that the apostle the Hebrews is able to speak of the Sabbath in terms of shadow (as he does the rest of the Old Covenant) in that it points the Sabbath Rest—the Eternal Rest of the saints of God (cf. Heb. 4).

To Be Continued…

And in the case of religion whereas this traditionalism against truth reared its fleshly head in the Jews who were thus blinded to the Messiah for whom they were looking, and in the Catholic church whose papal decrees and councils blinded it to the Gospel of our Lord, so too now many Baptists have taken up with great zealotry the doctrines of believer’s baptism and baptism by immersion without regard for the foundation upon which it was built. These have perpetuated divisions in God’s church by holding onto the spoils of a battle long past, and these have cherished the spoils and yet have forgotten and even contradicted those who fought the battle that produced the spoils.

To understand how we have drifted from those who spilt their blood for the sake of what is called believer’s baptism, we must understand the context in which that battle was fought. It began not too long after the Reformation began, where the church of Christ was being delivered out from under the oppression of the Catholic church that was much more political than it was spiritual. Because of the Catholics and their power, they ravaged the church of Christ and through fear of superstition gained power over the peoples of Europe, even to the extent of making the Pontiff of Rome the king of the kings of the nations. Because of this, there was a welding of the church and state whereby there was no distinguishing between the church and the government. The government was the church, and the church was the government. It was a most natural thought to the citizens of these Roman controlled states, and it is for this reason that the early reformers did not seek to break the division between church and state. They had no categories for such a division, so they attempted to practice holiness and righteousness within the confines of that which they had only ever known.

A since the church was the state and the state was the church, the ordinance by which men were admitted into the church was the same ordinance by which they were admitted into the state, namely baptism. Therefore, when a baby was baptized by the church, he was simultaneously admitted into the institute named the “church” and was made a citizen of the state in which he dwelled. Therefore, the ordinance of baptism was not merely an ecclesiastical issue, but it was also a political issue, and, therefore, to reject the doctrine of the baptism of infants was not merely considered heterodoxy, it was considered treason against the state.

It is in this context in which we find those who were called Anabaptists (meaning baptized again). These, despite many of whom were heretics, saw in the Scriptures that the church of Christ is not an institution that is synonymous with the state, but it is the elect of God, it is those who were called by God out of the world (ekklesia meaning called [from the Greek root kle] out [from the Greek preposition ek]). These saw from the Scriptures that the church was not to be comprised of both non-believers and believers (as it was in the state-church system), but the church was to be comprised of the elect only, purifying itself by the Word of Christ and by discipline in holiness. The church was to be to the world a city on a hill, a light for the unregenerate people, and salt to the earth, flavoring the unrighteous world with righteousness.

For this reason, when they saw in the Scriptures that it was only those who have believed in Christ and repented from worldliness who were baptized and admitted into fellowship with the saints, these rejected the doctrine of infant baptism whereby all people, elect and reprobate, were allowed in the church of Christ thereby defiling the church and making her a harlot rather than a purified Bride of our Lord. And since these rejected infant baptism and re-baptized those who were regenerate alone, they were counted by the state and the church as rebels and traitors. The church and state fell upon them as they would a terrorist, and many of them lost their lives brutally both to Catholic and Protestant states.

And it is in this context that we are to judge the zeal by which we as Baptists propagate our most holy of doctrines–baptism by immersion alone. Do we do it in the same line as those who spilt their blood, namely for the sake of the purity of the church and growth in holiness, or do we do it for the sake of some tradition in which we find ourselves and for the sake of our supposed biblical accuracy with regard to our practice of the shadow of baptism? I would ask you to survey the typical Baptist church in our country and think upon what you see. Do you see a church that is actively seeking to purify itself of worldliness by only fellowshipping with those who are of Christ, boldly teaching God’s people the Word of our Lord and disciplining its members? Or do you see a church that is so enamored with preserving the proper administration of shadow that they have neglected the very purpose for which those who fought for its proper administration died?

Sadly, it cannot be denied that the latter is the case. Many American Baptists have become so dogmatic and legalistic with the proper administration of baptism that they have wholly forgotten what its significance is. These are like modern day Pharisees who would circumcise on the Sabbath if it were the eighth day, and yet they wholly forgot that, “No one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical; but a Jew is one inwardly and circumcision is a matter of the heart by the Spirit, not by the letter” (Rm. 2:27,28). We like them, have become so ensnared by a symbol and a shadow that we have forgotten the reality for which they stand as symbols and shadows. For if you were to ask any Baptist what baptism truly is, I doubt that you would scarcely find five out of a hundred who could testify to you the marvelous work of the Spirit of Christ for the sake of our obedience, righteousness, and glory (cf. Rm. 6-8:17; Ez. 36:25-27).

Despite our misunderstanding of baptism and our supposed allegiance to its historical adminstration, we as Baptists have with our present day practices spit upon the dashed bodies of our forbearers. These who fought and died to separate the church of Christ from the godless state would be appalled by the way by which we not only do not repel the world from our fellowship but tempt the world to come into our midst. We as Baptists, with our church growth philosophies and our Field of Dreams mentality, Sunday after Sunday, week after week, and year after year, devise new schemes to make ourselves more attractive to the fallen world. We, opposed to our predecessors, do not view the church as the gathering of God’s saints alone for teaching and reproof, but we view the church as the concert hall by which we entice the world with our rock-star portraiture of Jesus so that we can trick them into praying some conjured prayer and into filling out a membership card so that we can add another butt to our seats and another tithe to our offering plates. We therefore preach “relevant” sermons that do not offend, and we paint pictures of emasculated Jesus who frolics in fields with fluffy lambs and who is going sob for you until you choose to make him your Savior. We care nothing about the holiness of our people, we only care about numbers; we do not care about their faith and repentance, we only care that they have written their spiritual birthday in their Bibles; and we do not care that they are generous to the widowed and the orphaned, we only care that they give ten-percent of their untaxed income so that we can fund our middle-class lifestyles and build bigger buildings and flashier stages by which we can lure more of the world into our midst.

So then, if you as a Baptist wish to honor the deaths of those who went before you, do not seek it through building monuments to them and through the dogged administration of a shadow, but seek it through the purification of God’s church from worldliness and worldly growth tactics. For I promise you that the modern paedobaptist church who actively seeks to cleanse itself from worldliness through godly discipline and accountability pays a greater tribute to the martyred first Baptists than we who bear their name.

I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit–just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call–one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift (Eph. 4:1-7).

When we think upon the writings of Paul compared to our own context, it is interesting to think about those whom he is addressing. He is not writing to the First Baptist Church of Ephesus or to the Ephesus Presbyterian Church or to the Reformed Church of Ephesus, but he is writing to the church at Ephesus. And what exactly does the apostle mean when he says that he is writing to the church at Ephesus? He explains this at the beginning of his letter: “To the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus” (v. 1:1). Therefore, his letter (shockingly) is intended for all who are in Christ in Ephesus–who have been bought with his blood and who share in the Blessing of his Spirit.

Though we are not told how many souls comprised the church at Ephesus, it is safe to assume, granting the size of the city of Ephesus, that there were many and that they were scattered throughout the great city in multiple congregations. Yet despite this, Paul addresses them as a single body comprised of those who are set apart for God and are faithful in Christ Jesus.

In our present context, the apostle’s address of the Ephesian church in this way is strange to us. Because of centuries of religious distortion, the church has been transformed from those who are the Lord’s (church from the northern dialect’s kirk from the Greek’s kuriakos- “Of the Lord”) to a sacred building intended to house worship services on Sundays. The distortion is profound, for it rails against Christ’s declaration that his people would not worship geographically but in Spirit and in truth (cf. Jn. 4:23), and it reinstitutes the shadow which Christ himself fulfilled. God’s people alone are the Church, and to label any building, place, or group that is not the faithful saints of God in Christ “the church” is a misnomer and a false declaration.

Taking Paul’s declaration of the church and applying to the text from Ephesians 4, it is an extraordinary exhortation. For he is exhorting a church comprised of multiple congregations and, no doubt, differing opinions on doctrine, to be “eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (v. 4:3). This point cannot be missed. The apostle is not exhorting particular congregations to be at peace within their own congregations merely, but that all of the saints in Ephesus would be at peace with one another. Such a declaration would be no less extraordinary than exhorting the saints who comprise the Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, and Lutheran congregations all within a quarter mile of one another on Six Forks Road in Raleigh to eagerly seek peace and unity with one another.

And this unity within the Church of God is not something that is merely icing on the cake of Christianity, but the apostle calls it the fruit of “[Walking] in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called” (v. 4:1). In other words, unity within the Body of Christ, i.e. unity among all the saints of God, is accomplished by Christians walking as they ought to walk.

How then are we to walk so that we, the saints of God, are unified as one body? The apostle writes, “[Walk] with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing one another in love” (v. 4:2). All these things when practiced by the people of God bring about unity in the Body. For when God’s people are humble, they understand who they are and the darkness from which they were brought and therefore understand that all who are saints of God are being brought from that same former darkness. This humility makes the people of God gentle people, for God was gentle with them in their own lack of understanding and sin. Recognizing God’s gentleness with them, the people of God are patient toward one another, suffering long with one another’s flaws knowing that God has long suffered their flaws. All these things culminate in love for one another, understanding the great love with which God has loved them, they are therefore eager to return it to those whom God loves.

When all these things are practiced by the saints of God, unity occurs. And it is not a man-created unity, but these things, being fruits borne by the Spirit of God, are a Spirit-created unity. For where the Spirit is present, unity is present, because, as the apostle writes:

There is one body (i.e. one church) and one Spirit–just as you were called to one hope that belongs to your call–one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all (v. 4:4,5).

The issue, therefore, is not an issue of unity of all those who label themselves “Christians,” but it is an issue of everyone whom God has called to himself. It would be foolish to strive for unity with those like Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc., who do not worship the same God as we worship or with those who profess Christ but live unholy lives, but when our God is singular, our Savior is singular, and his Word is singular, why then are we divided into many? I have heard it said by some that denominations are a necessary evil, but I believe the apostle Paul by his exhortation begs to differ. The greatest problem that we as the church face is not our doctrinal differences, but it is our unwillingness to be humble, gentle, patient, and loving to those whom God has been humble, gentle, patient, and loving. Oftentimes, we are more like Pharisees than we are Christians, measuring out a tenth of our mint, dill, and cumin, while neglecting love and mercy. If we were able by the Spirit to become humble, gentle, patient, and loving people, I sincerely believe that right doctrine would naturally follow.

Covenants: Unconditional or Conditional?
One matter that greatly shaped my former opinion on the practice of divorce was that of marriage being a covenant and a former professor’s teaching on the nature of covenants. And while I still highly esteem this teacher, I must say that I absolutely disagree with his view of the covenant, namely that a covenant is an unconditional agreement between two parties. His opinion on all covenants being unconditional is founded upon the New Covenant where the promises of God are not able to be thwarted by human design or transgression. We Christians often call this the “unconditional” love of God, whereby he saves sinners and continues to love them in spite of their constant failings.

While it is indeed true that God has covenanted with his people to such an extent that he loves them and is faithful to them though they fail, it is a misnomer to call God’s love and covenant “unconditional.” God’s love demonstrated in the New Covenant is very much conditional, however, whereas most covenants require that two parties fulfill particular conditions to prevent nullification, in the New Covenant, God fulfills all of the conditions. And since God does not fail and since the New Covenant is fulfilled entirely by him, his Covenant does not fail. And it is for this very reason that Jesus Christ became flesh and fulfilled the righteous requirement of the law on our behalf and died for our transgressions so that God might fulfill his Covenant with us and demonstrate his righteousness doing so (cf. Rm. 3:25, 26). God’s love for his saints is very much conditional, and it rests entirely on Jesus Christ’s work and his pleading for us (cf. Rm. 8:34).

This fact of the New Covenant not being unconditional but rested fully in God fulfilling its requirements is seen clearly at its inception to Abraham. In Genesis 15, God covenants with Abraham that he will give to his offspring the Promised Land as their inheritance, and he demonstrates his commitment to this covenant in the picture of him passing through the divided animal carcasses. Where in a typical covenant agreement both parties would pass between the animal carcasses, stating essentially, “May what has happened to these animals happen to me if I do not fulfill the stipulations of our covenant,” God alone passes through the animal carcasses as a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch, demonstrating that he alone will fulfill all the requirements of the covenant. And God did indeed fulfill all of the requirements of the covenant, wounding and bruising his own Son so that he might secure the Inheritance he promised to the offspring of Abraham (cf. Is. 53; Rm. 9:5-13).

Therefore, when we speak of marriage being a covenant, it is not an agreement that is unconditional and thus can never be voided, but it is as all covenants are–an agreement with stipulations. It is for this reason that when we are married we say certain vows, for in those vows we declare to our spouses that we will fulfill those conditions lest we nullify our marriage. Therefore if marriage is indeed a covenant and if one party transgresses that covenant and is thus “unfaithful,” the covenant is broken and can therefore be rightly nullified. Whether the covenant is nullified or not is dependent upon the transgressed party, but as far as the covenant is concerned, it is broken and must either be canceled or reformed.

What God has Joined Together, Let not Man Separate
In what is a notorious dialogue between Christ and the Pharisees, the Pharisees bring forth the question to Christ, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” (Mt. 19:3). The root of such a question is the reality behind its asking, for there were in Jesus’ day Jews who considered it lawful to divorce their wives for any reason that they saw fit to relieve themselves of their marriage. Christ responds to this ridiculous question from the institution of marriage from the creation, saying:

Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?” So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate (vv. 19:4-6).”

Thinking that they trapped Christ in his response, the Pharisees then ask, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” (v. 19:7). Christ responds:

Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery (v. 19:8,9).

In this, Christ addresses the heart of their question. First, he says that it is because of their hard hearts that God allowed divorce, and, second, he rebukes their licentious practice with the declaration that if anyone divorces his spouse for any other reason apart from sexual immorality, he is an adulterer. In other words, if a man divorces his wife for any reason other than covenant unfaithfulness, he is a transgressor of the law of marriage.

Despite Christ’s appeal to the covenantal nature of marriage, many, including myself formerly, have turned this passage around legalistically, and they do this thusly: First, they look upon Christ’s reference to the prelapsarian institution of marriage and how God had ordained that in a world apart from sin, marriage was to be a life-long bond between a man and woman to such an extent that they are considered “one flesh.” Secondly, they look upon the perfect will of God that what he has joined together, man would not separate. Thirdly, they look upon the statement that it was because of the hardness of the hearts of the Israelites that God gave them the law of divorce, and thus they conclude that all divorce is a result from hard-heartedness. From these things they conclude that since Christians should not have hard hearts and since hard-heartedness is the reason behind the Mosaic institution of divorce, there is then no cause whatsoever for divorce by Christians.

The problem with such a conclusion is that Christ clearly gives the stipulation, “Except for sexual immorality,” after he has given the divine ideal. By doing thus, Christ declares that marriage is indeed a covenant, and as a covenant requires the faithfulness of two parties, and if one party is unfaithful, the covenant is nullified. It is for this reason that he says that if a man divorces his wife apart from sexual immorality and marries another he is an adulterer, and, to put it positively, if a man divorces his wife because of her sexual immorality and marries another he is not an adulterer. The heart of the matter is not as many have made it out to be–that divorce is always an unacceptable practice by hard-hearted people–but that divorce practiced out of callous licentiousness for the sake of selfish desire and without just cause is against the design of God. To claim, as many do, that even sexual immorality (i.e. covenant unfaithfulness) is not just cause for divorce, is tantamount to calling Christ a liar.

Husbands, Love your Wives as Christ Loved the Church
When considering a case in Christian marriage where the wife has committed sexual immorality and has thus broken the covenant of marriage, the most quoted passage concerning the offended husband is that from Ephesians 5. There the apostle Paul writes:

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body (vv. 5:25-30).

Many who claim no cause for divorce often quote this passage without qualification, simply quoting the part, “Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church,” implying that in all ways that Christ loved the church, husbands are to love their wives. Therefore, they conclude that since Christ has fully reconciled the church to himself who transgressed against him that husbands therefore are commanded to reconcile with their wives no matter the transgression (This is to say nothing of forgiveness, for we are all commanded to forgive all transgressions that are committed against us, but it is a matter of covenant reconciliation). Are husbands from this passage therefore commanded, against the allowance of Christ in Matthew 19, not to divorce their wives even in the case of sexual immorality?

The problem with such a conclusion is that the apostle is not saying that husbands should love their wives in every way that Christ loved the church, but he qualifies it. To say that husbands must love their wives in this way would be to say also that husbands must live righteously for the sake of their wives, they must intercede to God for the sake of the wives, they must die for the sake of their wives’ sins, etc.–all of which are obviously absurd conclusions. In what way then are husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church? The apostle clarifies this, writing, “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her … husbands should love their wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church.” In other words, husbands are to love their wives as they love themselves. No husband is to seek his own selfish desires at the expense of his wife, but he, like Christ, is to love his wife as he loves himself and is to seek after her good as he would seek after his own good. She is by covenant one flesh with him, and not to seek her good would be despising his own flesh.

How then does covenant unfaithfulness play into this passage? It plays a vital role, for it severs the one flesh union between husband and wife. When, in this instance, a wife commits adultery and thus becomes one flesh with another man, the very foundation for this command is rendered moot. For the husband is commanded to love his wife as his own flesh for he is by covenant one flesh with his wife (v. 5:31), however when his wife joins herself to another man, that union is sundered and the covenant is broken. Therefore, the passage, in its strictest sense, applies to a union between husband and wife that has not been marred by a breech in covenant by sexual immorality.

Final Thoughts
All of this is not to say, however, that men by the grace of God are wrong to mend a marriage covenant broken by sexual unfaithfulness, but it is to say that men should not be judged and condemned for not mending it. There is no biblical warrant for condemning men (or women) for seeking the release of divorce when their spouses–they who vowed to be faithful to their spouses till death–renege on those vows a join themselves to another. Much too often, we in our legalism have created laws that God has not created and then judge men by those laws. In the case of a man or woman who has had to undergo the severe pain, heartache, and emotional turmoil and devastation cause by a spouse’s unfaithfulness, we in the church many times, rather than turning with grace and compassion to them in their time of deep need, spit on them and kick them with our man-made laws. And to worsen and to prolong that heartache as long as we can, we look upon them as outcasts and as unfit to serve in the church of God. They, because of something they would never had chosen and detest to their very core, are marred by us for life because of the wicked decision of another. We expect them to give grace where we in the church are willing to give none, and we expect them to offer reconciliation while we in the church refuse it to them. My prayer is that we will not add laws where God has given none, and that we will be gracious and loving to those who have been torn and emotionally destroyed by marital unfaithfulness and divorce from it.