Inspired as God’s Remnant: From Strife to Space
With David in Psalm 11:3 many churches worldwide ask: “When the foundations are being destroyed, what can the righteous do?”
This is because churches worldwide are experiencing conflict over the enduring authority of the Bible for our lives. There are many who are questioning the abiding authority of the Bible in ethical issues, especially around marriage and sexuality.
Believers are confronted with the questions:
- Can Jesus’ teaching that marriage is only between one man and one woman still be upheld (cf. Matthew 19:1-12; Genesis 1:27; 2:24)?
- Can Paul’s teaching that same-sex relationships be rejected still be upheld (Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:9-11; 1 Tim 1:8-11)?
Upholding the authority of the Bible is being opposed by relativizing biblical truth in these ethical matters. Some say yes, these teachings about marriage and sexuality should be upheld because they are universal and absolute truths, and they remain a vital foundation of the Christian faith, never to be destroyed. Others say, no! This can no longer be sustained, and they change or reject the meaning of the texts and thereby relativize the authority of the Bible for our lives. They view these ethical issues as non-foundational.
Obviously these views directly oppose one another, so that those who accept the authority of the Bible on marriage and sexuality as absolute, are in conflict with those who relativize the Bible message about it.
Looking at the broader picture of Christianity in the world, there are different ways by which this conflict is managed. Some choose a benevolent way of dividing amicably into separate institutions. like Presbyterians, Methodists and Anglicans have done in the US. Others choose to accommodate and make room for the different views, a choice mainly favored by leaders on the relativizing side. Believers who maintain the Bible’s authority as absolute on marriage and sexuality, find such a choice compromising, because it relativizes the absolute content of the Bible. Accommodation invariably turns to intimidation and confrontation.
In the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa, for example, individuals upholding the authority of the Bible on these matters, are allowed to leave the church, but if a congregation seeks to leave, they are often restrained by the threat of legal action regarding the status and assets of the local church.
The problem goes deeper than merely the accommodation of ethical differences. Inevitably it also involves dogmatic differences, like relativizing what the Bible teaches about the person of God or Christ, the Son. 2
A South African theologian has argued against “overburdening” the historic Jesus with divinity. His church took notice of this deviation from their stated confessions, but chose not to act against him.
Another SA theologian wrote publicly that God in Christ chooses against all violence, so to him this implies that all the texts in the Bible that connect God with violence are relativized by Christ on the cross, and thus all people are now recognized as God’s property and his chosen ones. Likewise large parts of the Bible, both OT and NT, are relativized. Yet Jesus Christ in his prophetic speech states emphatically that sinners will receive eternal punishment in hell, and those who do the will of God, eternal life (Matthew 25:46). The historic Jesus is not only the Savior, but also the Judge.
The question now remains: What are congregations to do, being discouraged by the conflicting ethical debate, and in addition having the core of their confession about God and Christ being relativized? Should we lay complaints to the ecclesiastical bodies that oversee these theologians? Should we have more fruitless debates at synods? More letters of objection?
Or is a new approach needed?
Perhaps we can find a way forward in a metaphorical reading of the narrative of Isaac in Genesis 26. The Lord clearly directs the patriarch’s ways through promises and commands. Do not go down to Egypt in times of trouble, but stay in the land the Lord has given. Everything belongs to him and his descendants, even those parts being argued about in the course of the narrative.
As Isaac moves to Gerar, still part of Canaan, he experiences conflict with the Philistines because they enviously close his wells. He moves to a plain, still in Gerar, and opens the wells of his father Abraham, to discover a special water source with consistent water. But instead of rejoicing with him, his neighbors demand ownership.
Isaac calls the well Esek, in Hebrew “dispute” or “strife”. He remains in Gerar and digs another well to provide water for his people and their livestock, but again upon his success his neighbors revolt against him and drive Isaac away from this well. Isaac calls this well Sitna, in Hebrew “complaints” or “enmity”. The source of water is denied him and taken again.
After this third conflict Isaac moves a further away and digs a well in the southeast of the country, where his father Abraham stayed and worshiped the Lord at Beersheba (Genesis 22:19). Thankfully no one denies him and his people this well, so he names Regoboth, in Hebrew “space”, because it was finally a place where he could live in peace with his people and prosper. In freedom he can even dig another well in the south which he calls Seba, in Hebrew “oath”, to remind him of the promise of the Lord that one day the whole territory of Canaan would belong to him and his descendants (Genesis 28:3-4; Hebrews 11:20).
So what is the lesson from this story of Isaac?
Isaac’s story of moving from “strife” to “space” may point a way forward in the current conflicts in churches over ethical and doctrinal matters, even though differences in context and history be understood.
Further to the Isaac narrative, we can remember the Apostle Paul and his significant, but different perspective on dealing with false teachings. Note his instructions in Romans 16:17-18:
17 I urge you, brothers, and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18 For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery, they deceive the minds of naive people.”
In Calvin’s commentary on these verses the people who cause divisions and obstacles will pretend to seek peace and unity, but they hide the fact that the unity they advocate, is based on lies and wicked dogmas. He adds: “Paul clearly shows, that he did not condemn all kinds of discords, but those which destroyed consent in the orthodox faith.”
Calvin broke away from the apostate church, resigning from his ecclesiastical posts at the age of 21, and then writing his Institutes, until he was forced out of the country, fled to Switzerland, and began ministering to refugees, publishing the first edition of his Institutes at the age of 27.
We have to remind ourselves that true believers are referred to as the remnant from Genesis to Revelation. Clearly God separates people, distinguishing between those who serve Him and those who reject Him. God distinguishes between Noah and mankind. Righteous Noah and his family are delivered through the ark, and the wicked of his time perish through the judgment of the flood. By choosing Noah and his family as a remnant and saving them from the flood, God ensures a future for his own.
The remnant and the true church are one and the same. The remnant and the elect are one and the same. The remnant, being the true church, will experience conflict and strife, because of God separating them for Himself. As Jesus wrote to the church at Smyrna: “Be faithful unto death” (Revelation 2:10), and to the church in Thyatira and Philadelphia: “Hold fast what you have, until I come.” (Revelation 2:25; 3:11)
Jesus addresses the leader of Sardis: “Strengthen the hands of those that remain.” (Revelation 3:2)
Why? Because they are targeted in the great war of the ungodly against the Lamb, but there is a promise: “the Lamb will overcome them, because He is the Ruler of rulers and the King of kings, and with Him are the called, chosen and faithful.” (Revelation 17:14)
We therefore live with this tension encountered by every true follower of Jesus. Simply ask: How do we, as a sovereignly chosen minority, stay faithful to the word of God? How do we confront our culture’s idols with the boldness of the Spirit and the authority of a message of life? 4
Yes, we pray for courage and boldness to speak truth to those in positions of power. Yet, we not only speak up, we also cast a vision.
Practically each believer and each local church must decide for themselves on these three areas of action:
1. Speak up and let your voice be heard!
To the question, Should we be silent about the synod’s decisions? Johan Janse van Rensburg answered in a Netwerk 24 article: “Although the general synod of the N.G. Church made a number of decisions that contradict the Bible, these decisions were accepted wordlessly by many church leaders and members.” He argues that the Scriptures were given to combat error and correct wrongs (2 Timothy 3:16). He pointed out that the synod (October 12, 2011) decided: “There is room for members who believe in the real and personal nature of the devil and demons, and there is room for members who interpret the biblical discourses about evil and demons differently.” He argues that the relativization of texts about the devil confronts us with the dilemma about the integrity and identity of Jesus Christ. There being deep mourning over a church that no longer respects the authority of Scripture in its decision-making, Janse van Rensburg asks: “Should we not object to that? Are we not Protestants!”
2. We are called to evangelize the nations
Just like Isaac we are drawn into conflict and never-ending debates, while our public witness gets limited and placed at risk. Under the Great Commission we are called to go into the world and preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ everywhere, but having to deal with conflict and liberalism at home, we neglect our real calling. Jesus sent his disciples to enter homes with a message of peace. He commanded them: “If someone who promotes peace is there, your peace will rest on them; if not, it will return to you.” (Luke 10:6)
We are called to evangelize the world, plant churches, raise up leaders and never stop until we have evangelized the whole world. Where we are or our message is not welcomed, we should move on to where it takes root and bear fruit.
We see this in the mission of the apostles, as delivered to us by various traditions. Driven by the leading of the Spirit, through opportune circumstances, or by some process of allocation, they went out: Peter to Jerusalem, Samaria, Antioch and Rome; Andrew to Scythia (Kazakhstan), Anatolia (Turkey), Macedonia, and Greece; James the Greater, brother of John, is linked to Spain, even though being the first of the apostles to be martyred by king Herod in Jerusalem in 44 AD; John worked in Ephesus, after Paul and Timothy, heavily persecuted until he was brought to trial in Rome, and exiled to Patmos; Philip also worked in Ephesus and southwest Anatolia, being also linked to Parthia (Iran) and Scythia (Kazakhstan); Bartholomew (Nathanial) died cruelly in Armenia or Parthia; Thomas went through Syria and planted churches in India; Matthew ministered and died in Persia; James the Lesser is linked to Persia, Egypt and North Africa; Jude, also called Thaddeus, ministered in Syria and Mesopotamia; Simon Zealot worked in North Africa, including Mauritania and 5
Egypt; Matthias went to Scythia (Kazakhstan) and Palestine, dying near modern Georgia east of the Black Sea; and Paul’s journeys are well known, taking him through Palestine, Syria, Cyprus, Anatolia, Macedonia, Greece and Italy.
This is the foundation of the church at large! The Apostles embodied a self-sacrificial missionary spirit that sought to glorify a cause greater than themselves. While the Four Gospels present these men as imperfect and even deeply flawed individuals, something grander than the men themselves, transformed them and carried them along on a mission to change the known world.
As N.T. Wright remarks:
“The truly extraordinary thing is that this belief was held by a tiny group who, for the first two or three generations at least, could hardly have mounted a riot in a village, let alone a revolution in an empire. And yet they persisted against all the odds, attracting the unwelcome notice of the authorities because of the power of the message and the worldview and lifestyle it generated. And whenever we go back to the key texts for evidence of why they persisted in such an improbable and dangerous belief they answer: it is because Jesus of Nazareth was raised from the dead.”
So, look for the place where the Lord can be served in freedom, where your testimony is needed, and then “go there”. The world is waiting for the Word of life.
3. Circles of Unity
John Stott guides us practically: “We need a greater measure of discernment, so that we may distinguish between evangelical essentials which cannot be compromised and those adiaphora which, being of secondary importance, is not necessary for us to follow.”
Four circles can thus be identified:
- First-rank doctrines are essential to the gospel. There are beliefs that are clear from a study of Scripture that were you to deny them, you would put yourself outside of the historic Christian faith. These include important contemporary issues such as the Bible’s vision for human sexuality and gender, and the authority and reliability of Scripture. The church has always considered these to be first-tier doctrines.
- Second-rank doctrines are urgent for the church, but not essential to the gospel. These are issues that Christians have disagreed about for much of church history, such as the nature of baptism. This is typically the level at which denominations are formed. But we can still partner with other churches on many Gospel initiatives because we agree on the first-tier issues.
- Third-rank doctrines are important to Christian theology, but not essential to the Gospel or necessarily urgent for the church. These issues include topics such as eschatology, the role of sign gifts, the age of the earth, which Bible translation is best to use. And while it is good and right to have strong views on even these tertiary issues, we should be openhanded with others who have differing views.
- Fourth-rank doctrines are indifferent (they are theologically unimportant).
Daniel Darling is convinced that true Christian unity must be accompanied by doctrinal integrity, but he uses these concentric circles to help the church know when to cooperate, and when not. (https://dandarling.substack.com/p/how-to-think-about-cooperation):
Let us then think of ways to cooperate in terms of these concentric circles.
The widest possible circle is the human circle. Here we live side-by-side with neighbors who might believe radically different things than we do, but we respect everyone as image-bearers of God and care about their welfare. You can partner with almost anyone if it’s a direct humanitarian operation, rescuing someone from a natural disaster, volunteering at a food pantry, tutoring children in schools, clothing the homeless.
Then gets tighter when it comes to working on cultural issues. Here you can work with folks who believe as you do about these issues like pro-life, child and women abuse, etc.
Other issues require a tighter circle, such as family formation. Here we work with those who understand the creational good of the traditional, biblical marriage.
But the circle gets tighter, when it comes to evangelism, where agreement is needed on justification by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. This is where we often partner on defending, protecting, and championing Christian orthodoxy. This is what the Bible calls “the faith once delivered to the saints.”
And the circle gets even tighter as we organize ourselves into fellowships and denominations with specific emphases and distinctives. Church planting, missions, ecclesiology, and theological education often organize at this level, though there are some broadly evangelical institutions of higher education that would locate themselves at the circle above.
An Australian farmer explained aptly to someone why there are no fences on his cattle farm in the semi-desert area. “Sonny,” he said: “out here we dig wells instead of building fences.”
That is what Isaac also did. He dug wells. And when they were stolen, he dug another one a little further down the road.
And in church terms, let us think federal and fraternal. Independent in terms of decision making and working together like we do in fraternals in different communities.
Dr Chris van Wyk
acv.vanwyk@gmail.com
A Presentation at the Leadership Conference of the Evangelical Christian Network on 13th April, 2024.
For the full paper click HERE.
In times like these, when the foundations are overturned and destroyed, the remnant is called to respond to the urgent question: “What can the righteous do?” (Psalm 11:3 NKJV).