Same Sex Marriages . . .

Sometimes loving a denomination requires you to fight

J. I. Packer

In June 2002, the synod of the Anglican Diocese of New Westminster authorized its bishop to produce a service for blessing same-sex unions, to be used in any parish of the diocese that requests it. A number of synod members walked out to protest the decision. They declared themselves out of communion with the bishop and the synod, and they appealed to the Archbishop of Canterbury and other Anglican primates and bishops for help.

J. I. Packer, an executive editor of Christianity Today, was one of those who walked out. Many people have asked him why. Though one part of his answer applies specifically to Anglicans, his larger argument should give guidance to any Christians troubled by developments in their church or denomination.

Why did I walk out with the others? Because this decision, taken in its context, falsifies the gospel of Christ, abandons the authority of Scripture, jeopardizes the salvation of fellow human beings, and betrays the church in its God-appointed role as the bastion and bulwark of divine truth.

My primary authority is a Bible writer named Paul. For many decades now, I have asked myself at every turn of my theological road: Would Paul be with me in this? What would he say if he were in my shoes? I have never dared to offer a view on anything that I did not have good reason to think he would endorse.

In 1 Corinthians we find the following, addressed it seems to exponents of some kind of antinomian spirituality:

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God (6:9-11, ESV).

To make sure we grasp what Paul is saying here, I pose some questions.

First: What is Paul talking about in this vice list? Answer: Lifestyles, regular behavior patterns, habits of mind and action. He has in view not single lapses followed by repentance, forgiveness, and greater watchfulness (with God's help) against recurrence, but ways of life in which some of his readers were set, believing that for Christians there was no harm in them.

Second: What is Paul saying about these habits? Answer: They are ways of sin that, if not repented of and forsaken, will keep people out of God's kingdom of salvation. Clearly, self-indulgence and self-service, free from self-discipline and self-denial, is the attitude they express, and a lack of moral discernment lies at their heart.

Third: What is Paul saying about homosexuality? Answer: Those who claim to be Christ's should avoid the practice of same-sex physical connection for orgasm, on the model of heterosexual intercourse. Paul's phrase, "men who practice homosexuality," covers two Greek words for the parties involved in these acts. The first, arsenokoitai, means literally "male-bedders," which seems clear enough. The second, malakoi, is used in many connections to mean "unmanly," "womanish," and "effeminate," and here refers to males matching the woman's part in physical sex.

In this context, in which Paul has used two terms for sexual misbehavior, there is really no room for doubt regarding what he has in mind. He must have known, as Christians today know, that some men are sexually drawn to men rather than women, but he is not speaking of inclinations, only of behavior, what has more recently been called acting out. His point is that Christians need to resist these urges, since acting them out cannot please God and will reveal lethal impenitence. Romans 1:26 shows that Paul would have spoken similarly about lesbian acting out if he had had reason to mention it here.

Fourth: What is Paul saying about the gospel? Answer: Those who, as lost sinners, cast themselves in genuine faith on Christ and so receive the Holy Spirit, as all Christians do (see Gal. 3:2), find transformation through the transaction. They gain cleansing of conscience (the washing of forgiveness), acceptance with God (justification), and strength to resist and not act out the particular temptations they experience (sanctification). As a preacher friend declared to his congregation, "I want you to know that I am a non-practicing adulterer." Thus he testified to receiving strength from God.

With some of the Corinthian Christians, Paul was celebrating the moral empowering of the Holy Spirit in heterosexual terms; with others of the Corinthians, today's homosexuals are called to prove, live out, and celebrate the moral empowering of the Holy Spirit in homosexual terms. Another friend, well known to me for 30 years, has lived with homosexual desires all his adult life, but remains a faithful husband and father, sexually chaste, through the power of the Holy Spirit, according to the gospel. He is a model in every way. We are all sexually tempted, one way or another, yet we may all tread the path of chastity through the Spirit's enablement, and thereby please God.

Missing Paul's point

As one who assumes the full seriousness and sincerity of all who take part in today's debates among Christians regarding homosexuality, both in New Westminster and elsewhere, I now must ask: how can anyone miss the force of what Paul says here? There are, I think, two ways in which this happens.

One way, the easier one to deal with, is the way of special exegesis: I mean interpretations that, however possible, are artificial and not natural, but that allow one to say, "What Paul is condemning is not my sort of same-sex union." Whether a line of interpretation is artificial, so constituting misinterpretation, is, I grant, a matter of personal judgment. I do not, however, know how any reasonable person could read Robert A. J. Gagnon's 500-page book, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Abingdon, 2001), and not conclude that any exegesis evading the clear meaning of Paul is evasive indeed. Nor from now on can I regard anyone as qualified to debate homosexuality who has not come to terms with Gagnon's encyclopedic examination of all the relevant passages and all the exegetical hypotheses concerning them. I have not always agreed with James Barr, but when on the dust jacket he describes Gagnon's treatise as "indispensable even for those who disagree with the author," I think he is absolutely right.

The second way, which is harder to engage, is to let experience judge the Bible. Some moderns, backed by propaganda from campaigners for homosexual equality, and with hearts possessed by the pseudo-Freudian myth that you can hardly be a healthy human without active sexual expression, feel entitled to say: "Our experience is—in other words, we feel—that gay unions are good, so the Bible's prohibitions of gay behavior must be wrong." The natural response is that the Bible is meant to judge our experience rather than the other way around, and that feelings of sexual arousal and attraction, generating a sense of huge significance and need for release in action as they do, cannot be trusted as either a path to wise living or a guide to biblical interpretation. Rhyming the point to make what in my youth was called a grook: the sweet bright fire / of sexual desire / is a dreadful liar. But more must be said than that.

Two views of the Bible

At issue here is a Grand Canyon-wide difference about the nature of the Bible and the way it conveys God's message to modern readers. Two positions challenge each other.

One is the historic Christian belief that through the prophets, the incarnate Son, the apostles, and the writers of canonical Scripture as a body, God has used human language to tell us definitively and transculturally about his ways, his works, his will, and his worship. Furthermore, this revealed truth is grasped by letting the Bible interpret itself to us from within, in the knowledge that the way into God's mind is through that of the writers. Through them, the Holy Spirit who inspired them teaches the church. Finally, one mark of sound biblical insights is that they do not run counter to anything else in the canon.

This is the position of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches, and of evangelicals and other conservative Protestants. There are differences on the place of the church in the interpretive process, but all agree that the process itself is essentially as described. I call this the objectivistposition.

The second view applies to Christianity the Enlightenment's trust in human reason, along with the fashionable evolutionary assumption that the present is wiser than the past. It concludes that the world has the wisdom, and the church must play intellectual catch-up in each generation in order to survive. From this standpoint, everything in the Bible becomes relative to the church's evolving insights, which themselves are relative to society's continuing development (nothing stands still), and the Holy Spirit's teaching ministry is to help the faithful see where Bible doctrine shows the cultural limitations of the ancient world and needs adjustment in light of latter-day experience (encounters, interactions, perplexities, states of mind and emotion, and so on). Same-sex unions are one example. This view is scarcely 50 years old, though its antecedents go back much further. I call it the subjectivist position.

In the New Westminster debate, subjectivists say that what is at issue is not the authority of Scripture, but its interpretation. I do not question the sincerity of those who say this, but I have my doubts about their clear-headedness. The subjectivist way of affirming the authority of Scripture, as the source of the teaching that now needs to be adjusted, is precisely a denying of Scripture's authority from the objectivist point of view, and clarity requires us to say so. The relative authority of ancient religious expertise, now to be revamped in our post-Christian, multifaith, evolving Western world, is one view. The absolute authority of God's unchanging utterances, set before us to be learned, believed, and obeyed as the mainstream church has always done, never mind what the world thinks, is the other.

What are represented as different "interpretations" are in fact reflections of what is definitive: in the one view, the doctrinal and moral teaching of Scripture is always final for Christian people; in the other view, it never is. What is definitive for the exponents of that view is not what the Bible says, as such, but what their own minds come up with as they seek to make Bible teaching match the wisdom of the world.

Each view of biblical authority sees the other as false and disastrous, and is sure that the long-term welfare of Christianity requires that the other view be given up and left behind as quickly as possible. The continuing conflict between them, which breaks surface in the disagreement about same-sex unions, is a fight to the death, in which both sides are sure that they have the church's best interests at heart. It is most misleading, indeed crass, to call this disagreement simply a difference about interpretation, of the kind for which Anglican comprehensiveness has always sought to make room.

Spiritual dangers

In addition, major spiritual issues are involved. To bless same-sex unions liturgically is to ask God to bless them and to enrich those who join in them, as is done in marriage ceremonies. This assumes that the relationship, of which the physical bond is an integral part, is intrinsically good and thus, if I may coin a word, blessable, as procreative sexual intercourse within heterosexual marriage is. About this assumption there are three things to say.

First, it entails deviation from the biblical gospel and the historic Christian creed. It distorts the doctrines of creation and sin, claiming that homosexual orientation is good since gay people are made that way, and rejecting the idea that homosexual inclinations are a spiritual disorder, one more sign and fruit of original sin in some people's moral system. It distorts the doctrines of regeneration and sanctification, calling same-sex union a Christian relationship and so affirming what the Bible would call salvation in sin rather than from it.

Second, it threatens destruction to my neighbor. The official proposal said that ministers who, like me, are unwilling to give this blessing should refer gay couples to a minister willing to give it. Would that be pastoral care? Should I not try to help gay people change their behavior, rather than to anchor them in it? Should I not try to help them to the practice of chastity, just as I try to help restless singles and divorcees to the practice of chastity? Do I not want to see them all in the kingdom of God?

Third, it involves the delusion of looking to God—actually asking him—to sanctify sin by blessing what he condemns. This is irresponsible, irreverent, indeed blasphemous, and utterly unacceptable as church policy. How could I do it?

Changing a historical tradition

Finally, a major change in Anglicanism is involved: Writing into a diocesan constitution something that Scripture, canonically interpreted, clearly and unambiguously rejects as sin. This has never been done before, and ought not to be done now.

All the written standards of post-Reformation Anglicanism have been intentionally biblical and catholic. They have been biblical in terms of the historic view of the nature and authority of Scripture. They have been catholic in terms of the historic consensus of the mainstream church.

Many individual eccentricities and variations may have been tolerated in practice. The relatively recent controversial permissions to remarry the divorced and make women presbyters arguably had biblical warrant, though minorities disputed this. In biblical and catholic terms, however, the New Westminster decision writes legitimation of sin into the diocese's constitutional standards.

It categorizes the tolerated abstainers as the awkward squad of eccentrics rather than the mainstream Anglicans that they were before. It is thus a decision that can only be justified in terms of biblical relativism, the novel notion of biblical authority that to my mind is a cuckoo in the Anglican nest and a heresy in its own right. It is a watershed decision for world Anglicanism, for it changes the nature of Anglicanism itself. It has to be reversed.

Luther's response at Worms when he was asked to recant all his writings echoes in my memory, as it has done for more than 50 years.

Unless you prove to me by Scripture and plain reason that I am wrong, I cannot and will not recant. My conscience is captive to the Word of God. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe [it endangers the soul]. Here I stand. There is nothing else I can do. God help me. Amen.

Conscience is that power of the mind over which we have no power, which binds us to believe what we see to be true and do what we see to be right. Captivity of conscience to the Word of God, that is, to the absolutes of God's authoritative teaching in the Bible, is integral to authentic Christianity.

More words from Luther come to mind.

If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point that the world and the devil are at the moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages is where the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefield besides is merely flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.

Was the protest in order? Was "no" the right way to vote? Did faithfulness to Christ, and faithful confession of Christ, require it? It seems so. And if so, then our task is to stand fast, watch, pray, and fight for better things: for the true authority of the Bible, for the "true truth" of the gospel, and for the salvation of gay people for whom we care.

J. I. Packer is an executive editor of Christianity Today.

True Apostles or just want-to-be's?

One of the most controversial doctrines for ministry is perhaps the so-called “Five-fold ministry” based on Ephesians 4:11 which reads:

“It was he who gave some to be (1) apostles, some to be (2) prophets, some to be (3) evangelists, and some to be (4) pastors and (5) teachers.”

Primarily as a result of this verse, some believe God has restored, or is restoring, the offices of apostle and prophet in the church today. Ephesians 4:12-13 tells us that the purpose of the five-fold ministry is, “to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.”

So, since the body of Christ definitely is not built up to unity in the faith and has not attained to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ, the thinking goes, the offices of apostle and prophet must still be in effect.

However, Ephesians 2:20 informs us that the church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the chief cornerstone.” If the apostles and prophets were the foundation of the church, are we still building the foundation? Hebrews 6:1-3 encourages us to move on from the foundation. Although Jesus Christ is most definitely active in the church today, His role as the cornerstone of the church was completed with His death, burial, resurrection, and ascension. If the work of the cornerstone is, in that sense, complete, so must the office of the work of the apostles and prophets, who were the foundation, be complete.

What was the role of the apostles and prophets? It was to proclaim God’s revelation, to teach the new truth the church would need to grow and thrive. The apostles and prophets completed this mission. How? By giving us the Word of God. The Word of God is the completed revelation of God. The Bible contains everything the church needs to know to grow, thrive, and fulfill God’s mission (2 Timothy 3:15-16). The cornerstone work of the apostles and prophets is complete. The ongoing work of the apostles and prophets is manifested in the Holy Spirit speaking through and teaching us God’s Word. In that sense, the five-fold ministry is still active.

Also, modern apostles lack the mark of one of the Apostles of Christ, that is having seen him. We must not let the word "apostle" in the sense of the Twelve, be confused with the word "apostle" as used in the sense of those "messengers" sent out from the churches. Thus we believe-at least I do-that the is a vast difference between the Apostles of Christ and the apostles sent out from the churches.

Don't sweat the small things . . .

Funny thing, my wife asked me to explain the difference between Lutherans, Anglicans, and Methodists the other day.

"Well," I replied, "for one thing they are not Catholic, that's for sure."

The discussion continued: "Then what are they? Protestants?"

"Well," I continued, this time trying to mimic Ronald Reagan when he used to tilt his head, smile and say his "Wells." I thought for a minute and said, "No, Anglicans are not considered Protestants."

"What are they, then?" she asked, looking a little puzzled.

I then explained that they were schismatics, but still in dialogue with Rome. Then I added, "Actually, Methodist and Anglican doctrine are very similar."

The questions continued until I finally said, "You know what? There's not that much difference in any of these that could not be solved with a little charity. At least not enough difference to keep any of them out of Heaven, and I have a feeling that there will be just as many of them as will be Assemblies of God people and, yes, a lot of others that we never expected to see on the other side, either!"

Why do I say this? Because, take for instance the Calvinist position on grace and accepting Christ as Lord and Savior, is our decision to accept Christ really an irresistible tug of grace to do so, or not? The Methodist and we Assemblies of God say that there's a tug there but certainly not irresistible. Not so, say our Baptist and Presbyterian friends because to allow that infringes on the sovereignty of God; as if, God were not also fully capable of relinquishing His hold on our freedom to give us a choice in the matter.

After saying all of that, we ask ourselves, what difference does all of this theological wrangling make?Not much, in my opinion. The end game is still the same, you're either Heaven or Hell bound in either case. So, why get all in a tizzy about it?

I know. I know. "Because," I hear someone say, "'em Baptist believe once saved always saved and that give the excuse to just do what they want to sin-wise, 'cause they're gonna get to Heaven whatever."

Really? I've met a lot of Baptist in my life, some among my own relatives, and I even attended Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (the larges seminary in the world at that time) and I have just to meet a blatantly sinful Baptist that tried to wiggle out of the consequences with the lame excuse of "Well, once saved, always saved." No! A Baptist conscience compels them toward repentance as does ours. On the other hand, do I agree with the Baptist theologically? Absolutely not, but the point is, these petty differences, by in large, are just that: petty differences.

"Well," I hear my imaginary friend say, "teaching that you can sin like the Devil and still make it to Heaven is just wrong."

Sure it is, but when you get right down to it we are all sinners on our way to Heaven--at least that's the way I see it. I've heard of a lot of perfect people, saints and all, but I really have never met one, including Mother Teresa. At least not good enough for Heaven, unless they accepted the fact that they were made ready for Heaven on the merits of His death not what good they had done.

That's what it is all about. "Grace. Grace. God's grace," as the song goes. Baptist, Methodists, Anglicans, Assemblies of God, what have you, it all about grace, God's grace. That's what missions is all about, too. Not making people better actors in some earthy morality play, but sinners in search of a savior, whom we have met: Jesus is his name. Hallelujah! Isn't that wonderful news? We know the Savior not just our Savior, but the Savior who died for the whole world, every last people that has or will ever live!

So, let's band together and stop majoring in the minors and vow that in the essentials we will strive for unity, in non-essentials we will exercise liberty, and above all things we will practice charity.

I am yours for the journey,

      Jim R/~

Musings on the Trinity

Ontologically, God is and in essence the single and only primal consciousness of imaginative and willfull potentialities. In His imaginative and realized potentialities by inference He communicates Himself as self sustaining love. Since only Godly intentionality is capable of sustaining and communicating such primal love it is rightfully assumed that His expressed purposes are of such nature. Now, let us consider these assertions. 

Firstly, as the primal essence God is what He is and He is understood only when declared as such. Fortunately, as an act of sustaining love God graciously discloses Himself to us through His Word which He announces and was proclaimed in the kerygma and from which we derive doctrine.

Accordingly, the kerygma is distinct from didache, which refers to teaching, instruction, or doctrine. Thus the kerygma refers to the initial introduction to the claims of the Gospel with an implied or otherwise stated appeal for conversion, whereas; on the other hand, the didache (catechesis) concerns the fuller and more extensive doctrinal and moral teaching and instruction in the Faith that a person receives once he has accepted the kerygma and has been baptized* and which more fully assist our understanding of the content of this persuasive grace. God as such--that is in His divine essence--has lovingly and thereby graciously initiated both the disclosure and the creaturely capacity for understanding the act and nature of this message. 

This we believe necessarily, that then:

". . . faith [comes] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." [Romans 10:17]

In other words, conceptionally faith is activated in content as a word from God--the word, however, is not faith but only the self-disclosing content on which faith acts.

Thus by faith and a priori intuition we understand that God is and He rewards those who earnestly seek Him. [Hebrews 11:6 NIV] Ethereal concepts are however just that: concepts, unless actualized in the praxis of life. Two plus two may in ethereal reality equal four; however, the concept is understood first in concrete reality--thus, Godwardly we understand the necessity of the incarnation for a fuller understanding of who He is.

Thus the axiom that if one wishes to understand a jelly fish then one must have access to a jelly fish is true in this case even more so because for God to remain ethereally aloof in His aseity may not discount His existence but it would most certainly influence our understanding of Him and at best He could only be understood apophatically.

This, Tillich understood but failed to articulate how he came to this conclusion other than through ignorance. Apophatic ignorance is hallow without reference or substance so therefore is incapable of understanding.

It is said that Buddha was once asked what God is and he pointed to a variety of things and said, "God is not this; God is not that!" Naturally, he could have gone on infinitely since the primal essence of God is beyond our grasp unless we are granted through and by His self-disclosure to glimpse His inwardness through the analogy of His outwardness in the praxis of our understanding. 

This God has done, we believe, in and through the incarnation of His primal essence in the humanity of Jesus of Nazareth, His Son and the son of Mary, a virgin girl married to Joseph the carpenter as recorded in Holy Writ the Christian canon of scriptures.   

That having been said, however, gives humanity at best only a glimpse of His Godly glory which may spark a certain curiosity but can only be adequately understood when appropriated in faith.

Faith without action is dead, so we thereby understand that a casual or intellectual curiosity is not sufficient. Commitment is required and by His grace we come to sense cognitively that we are indeed His child as our spirit bears witness with His Spirit that we are His offspring. [Acts 17:28] 

And, again we read in Romans 8:15-19 that,

The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to son-ship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.” 16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. 17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory. 18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. [NIV]

Further, the Scriptures informs us that,

6 Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” [Galatians 4:6 NIV]

This certain dawning, as it were, is the eureka moment--that, aha! moment at which our human experience suddenly realizes that God is there and we then realize that ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ [Acts 17:28 NIV]

------------
* http://www.catholic.com/blog/hector-molina/the-kerygma-enigma

I can see clearly now . . .

 

---

"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." — C. S. Lewis

---

Dear friends, faithful prayer and financial partners,

Paul has captured the spiritual plight of our generation when he wrote that,

“The god of this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” (2 Corinthians 4:4)

Sadly, the truth is that modern secularism has failed miserably to deliver the promised utopia of freedom and liberating spirituality that it has so passionately championed. Instead, we have been handed a culture of death both from war abroad and the abortion industry nationally. 

Our personal freedom has been corroded with an ill-defined political correctness that insists on equal rights for all except those that dissent. Our youth has been and are harassed daily to conform to worldly standards that even the most flagrant of sinners would have blushed at in times past. Heterosexual and indeed traditional marriage unions in general are considered just one ‘moral’ choice among others—yes, others, as in homosexual unions, and believe it or not, there is a strong from this ungodly crowd to legalize polygamy and even polyandrous (two men/one woman) government sanctioned relationships.

May I ask, where is there freedom in sex addition or liberty in the shackles of politically correct speech? 

This great Apostle to the Gentiles also cues us in on why modern secularism has failed us so miserably.

For [he writes] although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. (Romans 1:21-25)

Now, I challenge you to take the front page of any national newspaper or tune into the headlines of any international news broadcast and place either of these two Biblical references side by side with what the media gives us 24/7 and tell me that there is not a parallel there.

Sadly, in my opinion, we have become a nation of secular Hindus—more interested ecology  and animal rights than we are with pleasing God; not understanding that the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

But then, I am preaching to the choir, aren't I? And, we all know that is not good enough; we must also act. If we can agree upon this, then my next question is, Why then are so many Christians willing to sit on the sidelines and  let the few carry the banner and wage the war?

Truly, the harvest is plenteous. We need, therefore, to pray that the Lord of the Harvest will send forth laborers into the harvest field. 

I am yours for the journey,

Jim R/~

P.S. I've sent my passport particulars to begin the visa process for Russia. At present, we have received some, but not nearly enough to pay the expenses.You are a vital part of this ministry. So, please keep us on your prayer list. 

Sanctification: What are the standards?

In our enthusiasm to please God, we often reduce the process to a set of self induced standards [I am tempted to say, 'self inflicted' standards, but I shall resist that temptation] so it is imperative that we understand the true nature of what God is calling us to be. [Notice, I used the word 'be' as opposed to 'do'.] Standards are good and proper; however, any standard is only as good as the heart of a man or woman who practices them. Holiness, per se, alone will never convince the skeptic: 

For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ (John 7:33-23)

 Yet, Paul does give us a good rule of thumb in dealing with believers. He says,

It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything else if it might cause another believer to stumble. You may believe there’s nothing wrong with what you are doing, but keep it between yourself and God. Blessed are those who don’t feel guilty for doing something they have decided is right. But if you have doubts about whether or not you should eat something, you are sinning if you go ahead and do it. For you are not following your convictions. If you do anything you believe is not right, you are sinning. (Romans 14:21) 

So, I gather two things here; firstly, an unbelieving and skeptical world is not impressed with our standards; whereas, on the other hand believers may be offended by them.

Now, as far as believers are concerned, culture is relevant isn't it?

With that in mind, I make the following observations: The German Assemblies of God as well as Italians take a different view than we do on certain standards we in the USA have. Spurgeon smoked as well as C. S. Lewis (2 of the greatest soul winners of their times, I must add); yet, I find the very thought nasty and repulsive. Shall I place my standards on them, and if I do are they Biblical standards. We can all agree that adultery, killing, stealing, and so-forth are proscribed in Scripture, but we must admit that there are some practices that fall in grey areas. Women who cut their hair was not sanctified when I was a boy (Assemblies of God); lipstick and rouge was a no-no, movie pictures (i.e., Hollywood films) and television were forbidden, and yet, I dare say that none of these practices ever produced true holiness. Holiness is first of all a commitment, and attitude, and is bathed in love: primarily a love of God and people. 

I think the Apostle Peter sums it up best when he admonishes us to:

“Sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame. For it is better, if God should will it so, that you suffer for doing what is right rather than for doing what is wrong. (1 Peter 3:15-17)

Please understand that I in no way condone the filth that comes out of Hollywood or appears on the screens of our televisions; nor do I feel that a Christian woman would even entertain the thought of looking like a go-go stripper, or flip their bunny tails in some restaurant. That is simply something that Christians don't do without ever having to be told not to do it.

On the other hand, a lady can rub her face raw removing any residue of makeup off, and still not produce holiness. God truly looks at the heart. 

The the big question is, if that is true, do these verses in 1 Peter 3:3-4 apply?

Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious.

They certainly do!

Now, if that is true, pray tell me, you might say, in what way is it true?

Wealth is relative, but a Godly attitude is not. The Apostle is not talking about jewelry in this case, he is talking about pride and attitude of the heart. He is talking about not letting your Godliness be equated with how much you are worth, or how good or sexy you may look, he is talking about your attitude.

What he is saying is that your wealth or good looks do not count for a hill of beans in God's economy. Adorning one's heart is everything— no more and no less—when it comes to holiness.

Holiness in action . . .

According to Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology sanctification is to set someone or something apart for the use intended by its designer. In our case by God in and through Jesus Christ: "We have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" ( Heb 10:10 ). Christ was qualified to sanctify because he himself had been sanctified through suffering (Heb 2:10-11). 

Jesus was sanctified from the moment of his conception ( Matt 1:18-20 ; Luke 1:35 ). He was rightly called the "Holy One of God" ( Mark 1:24 ), sanctified by the Father ( John 10:36 ). In his character, therefore, Jesus Christ was morally sanctified. Second, he was vocationally sanctified (set aside for a particular ministry). Christ was obedient to His call (John 5:19 John 5:30 John 5:36 ; 6:38 ; 8:28-29 ; 12:49 ). Thus, he sanctified himself by fulfilling his unique calling as the Messiah ( John 17:19 ), being declared the Son of God at his resurrection ( Rom 1:4 ). Jesus Christ, therefore, is the model human being for both moral and vocational (ministry) sanctification (Php 2:5-11 ). He accomplishes his purpose through time, and continually fulfills his sanctifying purpose as the forerunner is for us as  an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec (Hebrews 6:20).

Now, the big question is, How do we live a sanctified life that continues in grace instead of a theology of works?

There is much in the New Testament that Paul does not teach completely. It was left up to James to “complete” or explain in greater detail that good deeds is a corollary that always accompanies abiding faith. In kindergarten terms, it is the show and tell of faith.

Our example is always the best proof of our inner convictions. [James 2:18]. This in essence is all that James is saying, When according to some he and Paul disagree theologically.

James knew Paul and was most probably was familiar with Paul’s epistles, so the reasonable conclusion is that James is simply expanding on Paul’s doctrine of grace and faith to counter a prevalent antinomianism [Acts 21: 17-28] among some who had misinterpreted Paul’s doctrine of grace and faith.

Personally, I therefore object to E. C. Barr that,

“Only unto Paul was committed the complete system or revelation of church doctrine. We term this division Paul’s unique gospel, those great church truths which Paul and Paul alone, reveals, proving that unto him was committed the complete revelation of church doctrine, thus it is "the gospel according to Paul."

That to me smacks of the kind of cultism to which Paul was most definitely opposed, when he wrote: 

I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? [1 Corinthians 1:10-12]

For as he put it,

“For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” [1 Corinthians 3: 11]

We can agree, however, with Dr. Barr that Paul’s admonition to Timothy is applicable:

"Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (II Timothy 2:15).

Where we choose to disagree, however, is that rightly dividing the word of truth is left entirely in the hands Paul’s gospel; as if the gospel belonged exclusively to Paul.  How anyone could claim that the 12 Apostolic foundational stones were somehow placed there with Paul’s permission.

So, we reject to the exclusivism of Barr’s interpretation of what the gospel is in terms of the New Testament narratives. We believe in the plenary inspiration of all scripture, including New Testament theology as recorded by others as well as by Paul..

In the words of scripture,

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” [2 Timothy 3:16-17]

Picking and choosing proof text for a particular doctrinal preference is not the way to go about doing theology. For sure, as Paul says,

"We are not under law, but under grace." [Romans 6:14]

Works are not an insignificant tag along that just happens to follow grace along on the trail faith. It seems to me that minimally faith requires assent which is a function of the will; however, a strict Calvinist, as appears that many of these Pauline cultists are, will not even concede that. Human assent is relegated to the sovereignty of God, as if God did not even give man the freedom to choose.

However, those that insist on a strict Calvinistic approach in understanding Paul’s doctrine of grace will adamantly oppose any and all suggestions that any effort—including ascent—as an act of libertarian free will on our part not only unnecessary, but also impossible, since for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.  (Philippians 2:13 NASV)

However, these same men conveniently overlook the prayer of blessing that the writer of Hebrews shares with us:

Now the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the eternal covenant, even Jesus our Lord, equip[i] you in every good thing to do His will, working in us that which is pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen. (Hebrews 13: 20-21 NASV)

The same corollary applies to works. Not the works of the Law, as Paul so clearly proscribes; but rather the works of Him that sent Christ, who likewise in turn sends us. [John 20:21] In a word, good works follows faith; or faith is not faith. It may be mental ascent, belief, or perhaps hypocrisy, but it is not faith. So, we are treading on theologically thin ice, so to speak, when we insist that Paul’s theology of grace is in some way superior to James’ theology of works.

It is true that it appears that Paul taught that pure grace is not in any way contingent on works or law. However, pure grace does not expunge good works as a corollary of actualized faith. For sure the law was inadequate as a salvic principle, since no manner of good works will save us eschatologically. Only Omnipotence has made that possible through the substitutionary atonement of The Son of God—a man of good works, for us. So, it seems only reasonable to assume that since we are to be made in His image [Romans 8: 28-29] that we too should be men and women of good works. This to me indicates an obligation not a choice. It is part and parcel of our redemptive covenant.

So, no matter how hard the “free grace” theologians try to wiggle out of any responsibility that translates into works, it seems that scripturally and logically they are lock into a theological conundrum of inescapable proportions. 

Good “born again” Christians are men and women of works.

---

[i] 1 Thessalonians 3:10

BIB: πρόσωπον καὶ καταρτίσαι τὰ ὑστερήματα

NAS: your face, and may complete what is lacking

KJV: and might perfect that which is lacking

INT: face and to supply the things lacking

Hebrews 13:21

BIB: καταρτίσαι ὑμᾶς ἐν

NAS: equip you in every good thing

KJV: Make you perfect in every

INT: perfect you in