Domain names are interesting things. With the large number of domain extensions out there in the world of the internet-ethersphere, it is not uncommon to have two websites, with the same domain prefix but different extensions, sporting some radically different content. This truth was refreshed in my thinking very recently. In the providence of God we discovered a spike in web-traffic at our video-apologetics site, www.wheredoyoustand.us, from people who were looking for the same domain prefix, but with the .com extension. Out of curiosity I looked to see what others were seeking and finding. It turns out that this alternate-universe-wheredoyoustand site is a kind of video storefront for fashion designer Kenneth Cole, husband of Maria Cuomo (daughter of former New York governor Mario Cuomo). At wheredoyoustand.com, viewers are exposed to a small montage of videos featuring Kenneth-Cole-fashion-clothing adorned models, whose sole purpose is (it would appear) to raise doubt on a number of controversial social and moral issues. The lesser of these “issues” deals with gun ownership rights. The more striking issue raised deals with homosexuality, where the obviously implied message is: homosexuality is good and acceptable.

Well, I thank God that several of these web-searchers initially failed to find Cole’s Vanity Fair[1] storefront, but instead stumbled upon a selection of very different videos that were crafted from a remarkably antithetical set of values:

1. Atheism & Religionism versus The Gospel: What good can religion, agnosticism, or even atheism bring to a person? This video presents an important query about all three belief systems.

2. All Men are Created Equal?: Can it really be said that “all men are created equal?” Were men “created” and in what sense does the notion of “race” factor into this question? As well, is “racialism” a valid concept of the human race?

3. The Reality of “Atheism”: Atheism is one of the fastest growing movements in America. What is Atheism, and how is it that atheists can come to such a conviction that there is no God? As well, why are the advocates of atheism becoming more active in advancing their viewpoints?

4. The Marks of True Patriotism: Do you consider yourself to be a good American patriot? What does it mean to be a patriot, and how might one live out such patriotism? As well, does your sense of patriotism change at all based upon who is serving in leadership at the time?

5. Religion, Politics & True Hope: Perhaps you have seen examples where religious faith has been used for the sake of political advantage. Is there anything wrong with using spiritual terms to describe our American politics & patriotism?

6. Do We Live in a Pointless Universe?: As scientists continue to research the vastness of space, we are discovering that the universe is much larger than we have ever imagined. Because of these ongoing findings within cosmology, many have surmised that mankind is utterly insignificant. As well, if it is true that the Universe will continue to expand forever into a cold and lifeless void, can it be said that “We live in a Pointless Universe?”

7. Philosophy vs. True Science: Can it be argued that the Universe “created itself out of nothing” as posited by Mr. Stephen Hawking? Is such a supposition the product of philosophy or empirical science – and does it matter? Will C.E.R.N.’s Large Hadron Particle Accelerator be able to unlock the universe’s deepest secrets?

Page 2 – Reviews:

8. Film Review – “Religulous” – by Bill Maher: Bill Maher’s movie “Religulous” argues that religion is harmful to humanity, and that all forms of theism amount to a single genre of foolishness called “religion.” In this review we examine the best and worst of what Maher has to say.

9. Book Review – God is not Great?: Christopher Hitchens’ book – “god is not Great” has become very popular throughout the world. He, like Bill Maher, argues that theism is “child abuse” and is a “poisonous branch that should have been snapped off long ago…” p. 275. Is religion a dangerous and poisonous branch within mankind?

10. Hymn Review – My Country ‘Tis of Thee: The hymn “America” supplies some very important lessons about the nature of our nation’s independence, dependence, and liberty. What is that message, and why is it still so important for our own day and age?

May the Father draw men to seek and find the possessor of all truth, blessings, and riches: Jesus Christ.

[1] Here, "Vanity Fair" is referenced from John Bunyan’s classic work, Pilgrim’s Progress. In Bunyan’s Vanity Fair, Christian and Faithful face the shallowness of the world’s love for money, possessions, fame, and power. When one merchant asked the two pilgrims what they were interested in buying amidst all the worldly wares available to them, they cried out: "we buy truth!" (Proverbs 23:23).

Taking no pleasure in this admission, let me say that I have far more pastors that I admire from yesteryear than I have in the modern day. Don’t get me wrong – I do have some men whom I respect and admire in the present, but they consist of an ever-shrinking minority. I fear that if men like Thomas Boston, Thomas Watson, John Calvin, or Thomas Manton were here today, they would be befuddled by most churches who identify themselves as conservative adherents to the five solas of the Reformation. The Berean spirit of past ages seems to have been replaced with a kind of truth-by-popular-appeal which says: “If it’s cool, trendy, and praised by many, ‘it’ must be good and true.”  I say all this, not to complain, but to offer the context of my appreciation for men like Thomas Watson. His words of comfort are penetrating because he heralds, not himself, but the truth of God’s word. My recent discovery of his work on Malachi 3:16-18 underscores this:

“Why should we be holiest in evil times?

1. Because of the divine injunction. God charges us to be singular, to be circumspect (Eph. 5:15), to be separate from idolaters (2 Cor. 6:17), to shine as lights in the world (Phil. 2:15). He forbids us to join together with sinners, or do as they do. The way to hell is a well-trodden road, and the Lord calls to us to turn out of the road: Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil (Exod. 23:2). This is sufficient reason to keep ourselves pure in a time of common infection. As God’s Word is our rule, so his will is our warrant.

2. To be holiest in evil times is an indication of the truth of grace. To profess religion when the times favor it is no great matter. Almost all will court the Gospel Queen when she is hung with jewels. But to own the ways of God when they are decried and maligned, to love a persecuted truth, this evidences a vital principle of goodness. Dead fish swim down the stream, living fish swim against it. To swim against the common stream of evil shows grace to be alive. The prophet Elijah continuing zealous for the Lord of Hosts when they had dug down God’s altars (1 Kings 19:10, Rom. 11:3) showed his heart and lips had been touched with a coal from the altar.” [Thomas Watson, The Great Gain of Godliness: Practical Notes on Malachi 3:16-18, (Banner of Truth, pp. 5-6)]

I am sorry to say that too much of American Christianity has become a “Gospel Queen…hung with jewels,” where veracity is established by popularity rather than truth. Watson’s encouragement is helpful and timely for our generation. We must never be persuaded by the fads of the famous. Many of God’s greatest spokesmen and prophets were the most infamous of their generation. Ultimately, God’s greatest Prophet was crucified by the leaders of the religious establishment. Truth is neither augmented or diminished by the praise or persecution of men, because God’s truth is immutably and infallibly true. The gems found within Watson’s work are many, which is why Spurgeon expressed great disappointment for not having this book within his vast library:

“C.H. Spurgeon had a well-stocked library of around 12,000 volumes. However, one rare book was not to be found amongst that valuable collection: Thomas Watson on Malachi 3:16-18. With a note of sadness in his voice he said to his College students: ‘This [volume] would be a great find if we could come at it, for Watson is one of the clearest and liveliest of Puritan authors. We fear we shall never see this commentary, for we have tried to obtain it, and tried in vain.’” [Banner of Truth Publisher’s note, The Great Gain of Godliness, Back Cover]

What Spurgeon failed to find in his lifetime has been rediscovered and republished for our encouragement and edification. I heartily commend this work to you.

In the previous post we examined C.S. Lewis’ use of a variety of thoughts, philosophies, and sayings which he collectively identified as the Tao:

"The Chinese also speak of a great thing (the greatest thing) called the Tao. It is the reality beyond all predicates, the abyss that was before the Creator Himself. It is Nature, it is the Way, the Road. It is the Way in which the universe goes on, the Way in which things everlastingly emerge, stilly and tranquilly, into space and time. It is also the Way which every man should tread in imitation of that cosmic and supercosmic progression, conforming all activities to that great exemplar."

Previously, my comments on this passage were quite brief, but I will say more in this second post. Before I do, consider how Lewis concludes the above passage:

"’In ritual,’ say the Analects, ‘it is harmony with Nature that is prized.’ The ancient Jews likewise praise the Law as being ‘true.’"

In all of this, much is revealed about Lewis’ eclectic view of "truth." His failure to scrutinize the philosophies of men by the standard of Holy Writ leads him into very troubling territories:

1. "[the Tao]…is harmony with Nature…"

2. "The ancient Jews likewise praise the Law as being ‘true.’"

3. "…the Tao [is]…the abyss that was before the Creator Himself."

With these statements alone, we are left with a very disturbing lexicon of "truth." Within this small paragraph, Lewis manages to do the following:

1. He heralds the eastern philosophy of being in "harmony with Nature" – a concept bearing little resemblance with Scripture itself (Romans 8:22).

2. He places the divine revelation of God’s Law on equal footing with Taoism, Confucianism,[1] and other various philosophies ("The ancient Jews likewise praise the Law as being ‘true.’").

3. Remarkably, he refers to the Tao as that which existed "before the Creator Himself." However, the true Creator is eternal and, therefore, nothing can be before Him. To suggest otherwise is utter blasphemy (Genesis 1:1, John 1:1-3).

Any conscientious Christian should be disturbed by such a small sampling as this. The sad reality is that any man who steps away from the foundation of Holy Writ, even a little, stands on sinking sand. In all of this I am reminded of that overly abused adage: all truth is God’s truth. While true in a particular sense, this expression is often used in order to formulate a body of "truth" that goes well beyond what God has actually revealed in His Word.

Ultimately, Lewis is guilty of creating a specious body of "truth" in his “Tao.”

Moreover, Lewis’ methodology of assembling his Tao is rather suspect at points. It is not uncommon to find Lewis assembling sayings in confounding ways. As mentioned in the previous post, one such example of this is found in Lewis’ use of Epictetus:

‘Natural affection is a thing right and according to Nature.’ (Greek. Ibid. i. xi)

If this quote seems like circular reasoning – it is. But more importantly, it does not reflect any specific quote from Epictetus, Book I, Chapter XI, On Family Affection. It may be Lewis’ attempt to offer a paraphrase of Epictetus, but one can only wonder. Ultimately, the point that Epictetus was making within his narrative is that one’s affections must be judged by reason in order to determine if something that seems natural is in fact right. The problem for Epictetus is that he is armed with nothing more than his own sense of logic, reason, and experientialism as he endeavors to find "truth." In the end, he fails to supply any real benchmark for judging one’s affections rightly. Such citations as these pose a problem for Lewis, especially when one bothers to divine the original meanings of such statements. As Lewis assembles his Tao with the puzzle pieces of such "truth," the careful reader is often left with more questions than answers, especially when one bothers to read the sources. When Epictetus, Juvenal, Cicero, or Confucius speak of creation, nature, evil, and justice, each writer is informed by his own distinctive philosophy. Thus, the lexical realities behind Lewis’ assembled Tao become even more complex when carefully considered. As a result of this, Lewis gives his readers a dangerous sense of license in the matter of seeking out "truth" from secularism and false religion. In the modern day, we find this same form of thinking in many churches that are becoming involved in things like Yoga and mystic meditation, under the assumption that such practices coincide with Christian faith. Such an assumption as this requires a shallow understanding of biblical theology, as well as an illiteracy of the very eastern mysticism from which they glean such practices. Throughout history many faithful Christians died in order to pass along God’s revealed word to future generations. God’s word is a sacred trust. Such a precious treasure of genuine truth is that which transcends the mere philosophies of men, therefore, it must never be lumped into a common heap of worthless sayings by fallen men. Or as the Apostle Paul said:

1 Corinthians 2:1-5: 1. And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. 2. For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. 3. I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, 4. and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5. so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.

Lewis’ Tao is a disgrace. His failures in The Abolition of Man could have been rectified had he started with the absolute and eternal standard of God’s Word from the beginning of his arguments. Had he done this, he would not have been touting the Chinese Tao (or some reconstruction of it), but would have instead heralded a real foundation on which others could truly stand.

[1] The Analects [or Lunyu] refers to the collection of writings and sayings of Confucius.

In many respects, the writings of C.S. Lewis have served as a bridge to many fields of thought, including: 1. Roman Catholicism (see C.S. Lewis and the Catholic Church by Joseph Pearce), 2. the Emergent Church movement (see Altar to an Unknown Love), and, to some extent, the eastern philosophy of Tao. All of these influences are deeply dangerous and should remind the reader that not all that glitters is gold in the Land of C.S. Lewis. Personally, I am amazed at how popular C.S. Lewis is, and continues to be, among professing Evangelicals. When I speak to others about Lewis, I find that very few know much about his core beliefs. It would appear to me that many are familiar with a few of his fictional works, but know precious little about his core convictions and teachings. For the sake of brevity and simplicity in this post, let me offer the following summary of Lewis’ views:

1. Lewis had a strong deference towards fantasy and philosophical logic over Scripture.

2. He held to a purgatorial view of Hell which had the potential of reconciling sinners to God, postmortem.

3. He denied scriptural inerrancy.

4. He saw mankind as being innately good, and only partially depraved.

5. He held to a view of absolute human free will which clearly diminished God’s freedom and sovereignty.

6. He had a view of the atonement that denied Christ’s penal substitution.

Concerning his denial of scriptural inerrancy, the impact that this had on his writing is sadly ignored by many who should know better. Perhaps the greatest example of this is found within Lewis’ highly celebrated work, The Abolition of Man (1943), which heralds the primacy of the Eastern philosophy of Tao: a philosophy of natural law which serves as the core form of thinking within Taoism, Chinese Buddhism, and Confucianism. Lewis believed that all of the natural law can be summed up in the principles of the Tao, and that such a philosophy should serve as a core standard for life and education. Collectively, Lewis had a high regard for the “wisdom” of all world religions, but chose to summarize all such philosophy within the Tao:

"The Chinese also speak of a great thing (the greatest thing) called the Tao. It is the reality beyond all predicates, the abyss that was before the Creator Himself. It is Nature, it is the Way, the Road. It is the Way in which the universe goes on, the Way in which things everlastingly emerge, stilly and tranquilly, into space and time. It is also the Way which every man should tread in imitation of that cosmic and supercosmic progression, conforming all activities to that great exemplar."

"This thing which I have called for convenience the Tao, and which others may call Natural Law or Traditional Morality or the First Principles of Practical Reason or the First Platitudes, is not one among a series of possible systems of value. It is the sole source of all value judgments…There has never been, and never will be, a radically new judgment of value in the history of the world."[1]

Lewis’ theorem of the Tao’s centrality as the way of life is repeated throughout The Abolition of Man. His version of the Tao was deeply eclectic, and was therefore an amalgam of various musings from all quadrants of the philosophical and religious world. For myself, I find it difficult to imagine a converted man speaking of the centrality of this “Tao,” especially within a chapter entitled: The Way. Uniquely, it was Christ who declared Himself to be the way, the truth, and the Life such that no man can come to the Father but through Him.[2] But Lewis shows no hesitation when throwing biblical texts into the same grab-bag of secular and Eastern-mystic expressions of "wisdom" in his effort to construct a body of knowledge that he calls the Tao. Believing himself to be a sound arbiter of such universal "wisdom," Lewis concludes The Abolition of Man with an appendix filled with various expressions of "wisdom." This he does in an effort to reveal the universality of the natural law in all lands and cultures. The problematic nature of his procedure should be evident, especially since Lewis fails to herald the primacy of Scripture as his infallible standard of judgment overall. Ultimately, mankind’s perception of the natural law cannot serve as a substitute for, or equal competitor to, divine revelation. A clock that is broken and therefore happens to be correct only twice daily is not made a reliable instrument thereby. For a professing believer to direct others to anything other than the Scriptures reveals a disturbing trend in thinking, especially since it elevates the broken cisterns of this world in a way that endangers others. Lewis’ personal use of the Tao only adds to the confusion of his pedagogy. Consider the following passage from The Abolition of Man, Chapter 2 – The Way:

"I myself do not enjoy the society of small children: because I speak from within the Tao I recognize this as a defect in myself-just as a man may have to recognize that he is tone deaf or colour blind."

Coming from a man who made his bread and butter from writing children’s fiction, a statement such as this is quite fascinating by itself. However, in relation to our point at hand, it is quite disturbing to find Lewis scrutinizing his indifference towards children, not from the standard of Scripture, but “from within the Tao.” In his Appendix (4. Duties to Children and Posterity), Lewis supplies a handful of references from Epictetus, Juvenal, Cicero, as well as an Ancient Chinese proverb – all of which speak about the value and importance of children; but as expected, none of them can compare to this Gospel wisdom:

Matthew 19:14: But Jesus said, “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” (italics mine)

While I can thank Lewis for his honesty regarding his struggle over indifference towards children, I can offer no sympathy to one who finds his aid through Epictetus, Juvenal, Cicero, and a Chinese proverb – even a very old one – over and above the comfort and consolation of Jesus Christ. What Lewis needed in view of his admitted weakness is the same thing that anyone else needs: the eternal wisdom of Christ. The indifference that the disciples suffered from was that which required a reminder concerning the centrality, not of the Tao, but of the Gospel of Christ’s kingdom: "for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." It is the Gospel call of Jesus Christ, not the Tao, that is the "reality beyond all predicates," and it is shameful to suggest otherwise. But as a man who thought so little of the standard of Holy Writ, it should not be surprising that the mere drivel of Epictetus, Juvenal, Cicero, and various Taoist proverbs should serve as suitable substitutes for the matchless and precious words of Christ. It pains me to say it, but this was the sad reality for that inconsolable soul – C.S. Lewis.

In the next post, we will examine one of Lewis’ citations of Epictetus in order to consider the manner in which Lewis loosely interpreted and used his sources when constructing his own understanding of the Tao. Along with this, we will reveal the manner in which Lewis often failed to produce accurate citations in the Appendix of The Abolition of Man. This is not an uncommon pattern in his writing overall – he often quotes the works of others, but without offering clear citations or accurate quotes. It is a wonder that the academic world has failed to see through Lewis’ "scholarship." So problematic and frequent is this pattern in Lewis that some have bravely sought to clarify the vagaries of his citations (as in http://www.lewisiana.nl/index.htm). However, our primary focus will settle on Lewis’ desperate attempt to construct his own Tao. In particular, we will consider his interpretation and use of Epictetus in order to demonstrate that the wisdom of men is no match for the eternal truth of God.

[1] C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man, (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2001), pp. 18-19.
[2] John 14:6: 6. Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

(Disclaimer: In presenting this critique, it is not my intention to imply that every member within CCCI is in harmony with what is here criticized. It is my intent to offer this word of warning with the hope that it may do others good, perhaps even those who now serve in CCCI).

This week Campus Crusade for Christ International (CCCI) announced that after a two year process of study, prayer, and deliberation, it will be "rebranding" the organization’s identity to that of CRU in an effort to "be more effective in sharing the gospel and to see even more people come to faith in Christ." This announcement has stirred much disappointment and surprise among Evangelicals, especially in light of their choice to drop the name of Christ.

What surprises me is that so many are surprised by this.

CCCI and I go way back to my earliest years as a Christian. Even my first seminary class that I ever took was from CCCI’s own school – the International School of Theology – ISOT. As well, throughout my years in the ministry I have had to face various influences brought on by the teachings of CCCI. The greatest such influence is found in what is called the "Four Spiritual Laws," written by CCCI’s own founder, Bill Bright.[1] Overall, I agree with CCCI’s proposed name change which is due to be implemented next year. In many ways, the new name says a great deal about the organization itself. But before explaining my affirmation, I should point out the following:

1. The word crusade is, historically speaking, a troubling term to say the least. In view of the nine or so religious/military crusades launched between the 11th-13th centuries, there is much within these campaigns that demands close scrutiny. What is most noble in the earliest campaigns is the effort to protect and defend Jerusalem’s people and territory, but sadly, these crusades degraded severely into reckless and riotous endeavors over time. Overall, all of these crusades were saturated with motivations that were rooted in Roman Catholic dogma, including the promise of plenary absolution for all who would take the journey to Jerusalem and fight.[2] For this reason, I would have no hesitation in dropping the word crusade at all. Frankly, I never would have used it in the first place.

2. CCCI’s stated desire to avoid offense in the presentation of the Gospel should have produced no surprise at all. In fact, the historic focus of CCCI has been to present a Gospel message that is devoid of any significant offense at all. In stating this, the reader should know that there is no value or merit in the introduction of offense in our Gospel preaching for the sake of being offensive. Our goal is not to be offensive when sharing Christ, however, our goal must never be to remove the inherent offense of the Gospel. When we remove the offensive elements of the Gospel, we remove some of the core tenants of its message. Thus, the historic premise of the four spiritual laws reveals the point here addressed: Law 1 – God loves you and offers a wonderful plan for your life. While true in a limited sense, this is only half the Gospel’s message, especially in view of mankind’s sin and active enmity against God. And though the second law does speak of sin, the presentation of the subject is tepid at best: Law 2 – Man is sinful and separated from God. Therefore, he cannot know and experience God’s love and plan for his life. When we combine these two fundamental "laws" within the Four Spiritual Laws of CCCI, we find a significant contrast of thought to that of the Eternal Gospel in God’s Word: Revelation 14:6-7: 6. And I saw another angel flying in midheaven, having an eternal gospel to preach to those who live on the earth, and to every nation and tribe and tongue and people; 7. and he said with a loud voice, “Fear God, and give Him glory, because the hour of His judgment has come; worship Him who made the heaven and the earth and sea and springs of waters.” Telling men to "fear God" and "give Him glory because the hour of His judgment has come" bears a strong offense to the natural man. What is emphasized in Revelation 14:6-7 (which is a summary of the biblical Gospel) is the worthiness of God, not man. However, when reading the Four Spiritual Laws, one is inclined to think that it is man who is deeply worthy in the Gospel’s equation, and that a loving God wants desperately for such a salvation to work out in view of that worthiness. The Four Spiritual laws is utterly bankrupt of any mention of the pending doom that comes to those who reject the Gospel. Instead, those who reject such an un-offensive "Gospel" tend to walk away from God without understanding what an offense they are to Him. What they do not understand is that, without Christ, the wrath of God abides on them (John 3:36).

3. CCCI’s founding president, Bill Bright, revealed throughout his life that he had a longstanding deference towards religious ecumenism. As one of the most prominent co-signers of the Evangelicals and Catholics Together document (ECT, 1994), Bright showed the world that his version of the gospel was broad enough to embrace the works-righteousness system of thinking found within Roman Catholicism. However, the genuine Gospel is violently at odds with the false gospel of Rome. Thus, this is just another indicator of CCCI’s historic endeavors to eliminate the Gospel’s offense and divisiveness when it comes, not just to secularists, but to religionists as well.

Which leads me to my affirmation of the name change to CRU. In many respects, this new name represents everything that CCCI has been becoming over the years.

Campus: Their loss of the word Campus is somewhat insignificant, though understandable. Though the word poses no offense, it should be an obvious choice in view of the fact that their labors clearly extend far beyond college campuses. However, their other choices are, at best, disturbing –

Christ: The removal of the name of Christ is deeply troubling, but understandable in view of their history as an organization. In many respects, this is just another rung in the ladder that CCCI has been climbing for years in its pursuit of an un-offensive "Gospel." Certainly, the name of Christ does offend people, just as the genuine message of the Gospel itself offends people. By removing the name of Christ, CCCI has shown itself for what it is – an organization that is more concerned about offending men than it is about offending God.

Crusade: Strangely, the only term that should have been removed (for the reasons stated above) is the term that they have chosen to retain, but in abbreviated form. In many respects, this further exposes the historic practices and procedures of CCCI. For years now they have chosen to hide and veil matters before a watching world. Thus, instead of laying their cards out on the table when presenting themselves to the culture, CCCI has had this tendency of masking themselves and their message in an attempt to become more relevant and acceptable within this fallen world. Strangely, their rebranding efforts will most likely backfire on them. When an unbeliever comes to ask the question – "what does CRU stand for?" the CRU "missionary" will then have the awkward responsibility of having to explain this troubling term. Unwittingly, in their effort to remove stumbling blocks and unnecessary offenses, they have actually managed to magnify a very irrelevant offense – one that has nothing to do with the Gospel at all. While I don’t delight in their choices – I truly don’t -  I must confess that I have little surprise in this.

Sadly, CRU is a very fitting name indeed.

[1] CCCI was founded in 1951, and the Four Spiritual Laws tract was made in the next year in 1952.
[2]"The Crusades furnished the popes the occasion to issue indulgences on a magnificent scale. Urban II,’s indulgence, 1095, granting plenary absolution to all taking the journey to Jerusalem was the first of a long series of such papal franchises. That journey, Urban said, should be taken as a substitute for all penance." Schaff, P., & Schaff, D. S. (1997). History of the Christian church. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

(Reposted from July 3rd, 2007)

No, the title isn’t a typo – I mean it when I say happy third of July!  For me it’s the most memorable day of the year!  Now, I certainly don’t mean to take anything away from our nation’s independence-day celebration so, happy fourth of July as well!  

There is no doubt that the fourth of July is a great day of celebration concerning our freedom as citizens of this great nation.  Much blood has been shed in order to procure our American liberty, and for this we ought to be very grateful.  As we take time to reflect on the significance of our national blessings, we can thank the Lord that we live in a land where we still have the freedom to worship and proclaim Christ to the masses who need to hear the Gospel message.  But I have to say, for myself, that the 3rd trumps the 4th immeasurably.  I’m not being unpatriotic when I say this – I’m just being realistic.  You see it was on the third of July 1981, while I was serving in the Air Force, in Okinawa Japan, that I heard the Gospel message and trusted Christ as my Lord and Savior.  I’ll never forget that day.  The unbearable burden of my sin had been taken away and for the first time in my life I became, by God’s sovereign and precious grace, a truly free man.

July third 1981 fell on a Friday that year.  I have vivid memories of that day as I went about in a kind of heavenly daze.  The world around me seemed to fade into the background of this great truth that I was forgiven; that I was a child of God and there was therefore no condemnation on me because I was Christ’s possession forevermore! 

Now I do recall being invited by some co-workers to go see a fireworks display on base the very next day, and I gladly accepted their offer.  While I can say that the fireworks display was spectacular, it seemed to be a faint light compared to the explosion of joy that the Lord granted me just the day before.  Ever since then I have spent my subsequent July 4ths celebrating a day early – by remembering that moment when I was granted freedom in Christ, by His shed blood.  This is real freedom, one that no one can take away. If you remain uncertain concerning the state of your own soul, please consider the following:

The Word of God teaches us that the God and Creator of the universe deserves all of our love and obedience: "Worthy are You [God] to receive glory and honor and power, for You created all things" (Revelation 4:11)

But sadly, all of mankind has sinned and rebelled against this worthy God and because of that sin, all men stand condemned in His sight – Romans 3:23 "..all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." "..the wages of sin is death.." Rom 6:23.

Therefore, man is eternally separated from God and faces the severe consequences of eternal death – though man deserves this death (because of sin) something must be understood – " ..God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Romans 5:8.

Christ paid the debt that men owe by living a perfect life and then dying on a cross in the sinner’s stead. He was raised from the dead on the third day and will return again in order to judge the living and the dead (Acts 17:24-31). Jesus said "..God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life." (John 3:16). This is the great expectation of every Christian. The Lord has commissioned His children to share this good news with all men! But how does one receive this wonderful pardon and life in Christ? – "..if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved;" Romans 10:9. Please do not underestimate the importance of these truths, for Jesus also said – "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God" John 3:18.

Everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin (John 8:34); but when a person places their faith and trust in Christ they will be free indeed (John 8:36).  True freedom comes not from the governmental institutions established by men; instead it comes from the only One who has the power to set men from from the bondage of sin and death – the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 John 4:16: 
We have come to know and have believed the love
which God has for us.

Faith in Christ is central to the believer’s existence. We are justified by faith in Christ (Romans 5:1), and the object of our faith is the Lord Himself who loved us with a love that transcends the experience and understanding of the natural man. Now the natural man defines love from the vantage point of his autonomous selfishness, but the Father revealed His love in view of His eternal union with His Son – a union in which the Christian now abides in the risen Savior. We have come to know this Lord, and by grace alone, we have come to know the nature of His precious and unique love. Such love is not the product of the lusts of the flesh, but it is that which comes from the One whom John describes as follows: God is love. If we could know this God from our flesh alone – from our base and sinful nature – then we would have to question the nature of such a deity. But by God’s work of regeneration, we have “come to know and have believed the love which God has for us.” Without His spiritual transformation, such love is a love unknown.

Samuel Crossman, in his work entitled, “The Young Man’s Meditation” (1623-1683) echoes this sentiment quite well in this hymn:

My Song is Love Unknown

My song is love unknown,
My Savior’s love to me;
Love to the loveless shown,
That they might lovely be.
O who am I, that for my sake
My Lord should take, frail flesh and die?

He came from His blest throne
Salvation to bestow;
But men made strange, and none
The longed for Christ would know:
But O! my Friend, my Friend indeed,
Who at my need His life did spend.

Sometimes they strew His way,
And His sweet praises sing;
Resounding all the day
Hosannas to their King:
Then “Crucify!” is all their breath,
And for His death they thirst and cry.

Why, what hath my Lord done?
What makes this rage and spite?
He made the lame to run,
He gave the blind their sight,
Sweet injuries! Yet they at these
Themselves displease, and ’gainst Him rise.

They rise and needs will have
My dear Lord made away;
A murderer they saved,
The Prince of life they slay,
Yet cheerful He to suffering goes,
That He His foes from thence might free.

In life, no house, no home
My Lord on earth might have;
In death no friendly tomb
But what a stranger gave.
What may I say? Heav’n was His home;
But mine the tomb wherein He lay.

Here might I stay and sing,
No story so divine;
Never was love, dear King!
Never was grief like Thine.
This is my Friend, in Whose sweet praise
I all my days could gladly spend.

The central message of the Gospel is the message of God’s transcendent person, nature, glory, power, wisdom, holiness, justice and love. Thus, when we point men to the cross, we must remind them that the love expressed through the death of Christ is a love that cannot be known by mankind’s sinful nature. Such a love as this came from Heaven above and can only be known by those who have been born again (anothen – from above). But until the scales are removed from his eyes, the natural man can only admit that such love is a love unknown.

See also, ataul.thearmoury.org

Passionate unity can be a beautiful thing, or it can be a horrific evil. Thus, one thing is certain: passion, by itself, does not determine the quality of any unity. Men can be passionate and unified about a number of things. In Acts 19 we read about the passionate chanting of the inhabitants of Ephesus, where they declared "Great is Artemis of the Ephesians" for two hours.

Now that’s passion!

But it also happens to be great idolatry. Without truth, our passions remain unsanctified, being defiled by our indwelling sin. But there is something about our human nature that wants to herald passion (even sincere passion) as that which is commendable (apart from truth), but I would suggest to the reader that such thinking is dangerous. The inhabitants of Ephesus may have been very sincere in their devotion to Artemis, but this did not sanctify their idolatry. Any unity among men cannot be adjudicated by the substance of raw enthusiasm alone; instead, truth stands as the plumb line for any alliance and determines if such unity is holy or unholy. We see this very clearly illustrated through the Greek word homothumadon – "one accord" – a word that speaks of a passionate unity among men, whether good or bad:

Romans 15:5-6: 5. Now may the God who gives perseverance and encouragement grant you to be of the same mind with one another according to Christ Jesus, 6. so that with one accord [homothumadon] you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Acts 18:12-13: 12. But while Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews with one accord [homothumadon] rose up against Paul and brought him before the judgment seat, 13. saying, “This man persuades men to worship God contrary to the law.”

The simple construct of this word – homothumadon – is quite telling: homo [same] + thumadon [from thumos – passion]. Overall, it speaks of a unity that is rooted in a common passion and resultant conviction among men.[1] What this term does not settle is the basis of such passion/unity, and therefore, context is essential and determinative. As revealed in Romans 15:5-6, the Christian’s passionate unity [v.6] is rooted in a like-mindedness that is in Christ [v.5]. Without such like-mindedness in Christ, our unity is anchorless, no matter how passionate it may be. This is evident in Acts 18:12-13. Those Jews who sought to try Paul before Gallio were extremely unified and passionate about their cause, but we must remember the shallowness of such zeal:

Romans 10:1-2: 1. Brethren, my heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. 2. For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge.

Without truth, all zeal is rendered is useless. This should remind us of the danger of subjectivism, where the worshipper’s personal affections are elevated above God’s truth. Zeal is crucial indeed, but without truth, it is wasted energy. The other extreme offers no solution either: truth, without genuine faith, hope, and love is nothing less than religious hypocrisy.

This lesson of genuine unity is crucial, because the extremes of men (Subjectivism or Pharisaism) offer us no hope. The biblical path is the true path. Therefore the church must seek a passionate unity that is founded upon nothing else but the stable foundation of God’s Word.

[1] The thumos in which the unanimity consists may be anger (Philo Flaccum, 144), fear (Jdt. 15:2), gratitude (Wis. 10:20), etc. Theological dictionary of the New Testament. 1964-c1976. Vols. 5-9 edited by Gerhard Friedrich. Vol. 10 compiled by Ronald Pitkin. (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (5:185). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Quaint and pithy sayings are often mistaken for genuine wisdom, especially when they are given to us from historical figures or men of renown. Great danger comes when the hearer becomes passive with such "wisdom" by failing to measure everything by the standard of Holy Writ. No man can match the ancient wisdom of God’s Word.[1] Consider the following counsel offered by Dietrich Bonhoeffer to a young couple about to be married:

“It is not your love that sustains the marriage, but from now on, [it is] the marriage that sustains your love.”

We should wonder if this is true. Can it be said that the marriage covenant itself is what sustains love? One problem with Bonhoeffer’s statement is that it is rather vague, and leaves itself open to a variety of possible interpretations. Ultimately, what sustains any marriage is the Lord Himself. But accepting his statement at face value, I would suggest that Bonhoeffer has created an unhelpful dichotomy – especially for a marriage between two believers. You see, when two genuine Christians enter into the bond of marriage, they are doing so within the perfect bond of unity – agape-love. If they are Christians at all, then the centerpiece for all their affections is rooted and grounded in such love. Now we should clarify an important point here: when speaking of agape-love we are not talking about the self-oriented infatuation which is common in our world (eros-love). Such a distinction is essential, especially since men like C.S. Lewis have popularized the idea that marital love is rooted in such eros-love:

"By Eros I mean of course that state which we call ‘being in love’; or, if you prefer, that kind of love which lovers are ‘in.’"[2]

Unfortunately, Lewis’ interpretations of eros-love reveal a lack of understanding of simple history and etymology. Because of such a shortcoming, he fails to offer a scriptural description of genuine love found between two believers in Christ. What must be understood is that true marital love is rooted in a Christ centered, Christ exalting, love which establishes the perfect bond of unity in all our relationships:

Colossians 3:14-19: 14. Beyond all these things put on love [ten agapen], which is the perfect bond [sundesmos] of unity. 15. Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body; and be thankful. 16. Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God. 17. Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father. 18. Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. 19. Husbands, love [agapete] your wives and do not be embittered against them.

Paul’s description of the centrality of love in verse 14 should not be seen as separate from his continued instructions in vs. 18 & 19 – all of these summary commands are related to the principal injunction [by ellipsis] to "put on love" as our chief garment in Christ. Should we conclude that Paul has not marriage in mind when speaking of the perfect bond of unity – love, then we have missed too much. Paul’s emphasis on the primacy of agape-love is very consistent throughout his writings, and reveals his commitment to the Savior’s injunction concerning the foremost commandment of love: Mark 12:28-31, such that “on these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”[3] It is this same bond of agape-love to which the Lord refers when He reveals the basis of His covenant faithfulness to Ephraim, despite their wickedness:

Hosea 11:4: 4. I led them with cords of a man, with bonds of love [desmois agapeseos], And I became to them as one who lifts the yoke from their jaws; And I bent down and fed them.

As well, it is such love that is especially modeled in the Savior’s relationship with His bride, the church:

Ephesians 5:22-25: 22. Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. 25. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her…"[4]

The constancy and centrality of love within the marriage covenant cannot be ignored, nor should it be separated from the marriage covenant itself as if it could be in a Christian marriage. Like our faith in Christ, agape-love will wax and wane in any marriage, but what sustains the believer’s love is not a covenant, by itself, but the Lord Himself and His unfailing love. If we love at all, we do so, as believers whom the Lord loved first.[5] Without such love, there can be no perfect bond of unity in any relationship. Thus, when two unbelievers face marital difficulties, there is a great danger that looms in their midst. Without the bond of God’s supernatural love, there is no substantive bond between them beyond the legal covenant itself. But when two believers face marital difficulty, there is something very powerful and needful there that cannot be removed from the marriage union itself – the perfect bond of unity – the bond of God’s love. When two believers face struggles and trials with one another, such is a time that requires an even greater measure of agape-love. Romantic affections will especially wax and wane, but genuine love will always stand as the centerpiece of every godly marriage. If a man were to believe that it is his covenant promise alone that sustains his marriage, he has made too much of his oath,[6] and too little of the power of God’s love in his life and in the life of his wife. If he thinks that his marriage can be sustained without love, then he has been reduced to a miserable condition of thought concerning the nature of God’s faithfulness, power, and sufficiency. An anniversary card from such a man should never be crafted nor given:

"The first 20 years were great. The next 20 years will be difficult, but just remember – I’m enduring it because of my oath. Happy Anniversary Honey!"

Without the love of God, every marriage is reduced to a mere contractual obligation, with brief hints of eros self-satisfaction sprinkled here and there.

But that is the world’s version of marriage.

I have seen some very sweet and elderly marriages which revealed the fragrant aroma and evidence of Christ’s sanctification in their lives – marriages that went beyond 50 & 60 years. It is not that these were perfect people, but what I have witnessed is the power of God’s love and sanctification in the lives of genuine believers, such that the perfect bond of unity was a growing reality in their lives, even more real than when they first said to each other: "I do." This is what one might expect from people whose lives are being conformed to the image of Christ on the sure foundation of agape-love. Thus, what a young couple ought to hear is this:

“You will be sustained by the power of God’s love in your marital covenant – for His love, in and through you both, will supply the perfect bond of unity to weather all of the storms, struggles, and changes of life.”

There is great hope in the message of God’s great love, and it is for this reason that I have felt so compelled to write Altar to an Unknown Love in view of the many obfuscations of this important subject. The subject of genuine love is nothing to trifle with. Whatever Bonhoeffer meant by what he said, I must prefer Scripture and the power of God to sustain anything.

[1] Psalm 119:100: I understand more than the aged, Because I have observed Your precepts.
[2] C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves.
[3] Matthew 22:40
[4] As the church is called to a loving submission to Christ, so too are wives called to submit to their husbands. The absence of the word love in Paul’s instructions to wives must not be construed as denoting an unloving submission: this would be contrary to his earlier point made repeatedly in Ephesians chapter 3.
[5] 1 John 4:19.
[6] Matthew 5:31-37: 31. “It was said, ‘Whoever sends his wife away, let him give her a certificate of divorce’; 32. but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. 33. “Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not make false vows, but shall fulfill your vows to the Lord.’ 34. “But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35. or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36. “Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37. “But let your statement be, ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no’; anything beyond these is of evil.