I have some more thoughts on this theme (cultural moralism) that I plan to post shortly. In the meantime I wanted to post this video as it is, I feel, helpful. This is especially in light of the political election season.
John MacArthur on Moralism
Erik Raymond
Erik has been writing at Ordinary Pastor since 2006. He lives in Omaha with his wife and kids while pastoring at Emmaus Bible Church. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/erikraymond
Subscribe to the Emmaus Podcast
Erik,
That video neglects the Christians responsibility in pointing out how many Christians have the wrong focus in “cultural moralism.” It assumes that the “cultural moralist” is doing so without the gospel as the center. The Christian is involved in politics for several reasons. One of these reasons is because it is an opportunity to preach the law and therefore convict of sin leading to an opportunity to preach the forgiveness that is found in Christ. If I preach that abortion is murder and lobby for a candidate who recognizes the same, I am not necessarily doing anything wrong. Instead, the Christian who does this is obeying 2 commands. 1) preaching the law 2) standing up for those who cannot stand up for themselves. Yes, many Christians get this wrong and do the very things that MacArthur preached against, but he missed the proper balance here. He missed the responsibility of the Christian to be involved and battling for “pure religion” instead of sitting on the couch and eating potato chips.
If the gospel was at the center, wouldn’t we be evangelizing EVERY opportunity we get? Only hearts matter. People know right from wrong, like Jmac said, God has given them over, and only the Gospel will due. I got the point, he didn’t have to spell it out.
“Legislating” morality is not the power for salvation (does anything else matter?) Salvation is the power to change ones morality. I love that. For anyone who has attempted to “change” ones mind concerning abortion or any other host of issues that we deal with in this country, apart from the proclaiming gospel is wasting their time. Jim, the only people who know and believe in the Gospel are genuine Christians. The Gospel is the truth that God uses to change people. Nobody can be converted apart from it. Paul I’m sure was concerned with the moral degradation that was all around him. It drove him to be reminded of the Gospel and God’s wrath against such behavior. We too should see what is happening all around us and be boldly preaching the same message. That’s the only thing that will change behavior. I don’t understand your last statement. Are we “Christians” to encourage other Christians to go get people off of their couches to battle for religious moral principles? Under who’s authority are we to do this. Or do you mean that we are to make disciples of Christ? Using His example. Not some religious moral code.
Amen to the video! The gospel is the power of God unto salvation and the only way to clean up anyone!
We were never called to stamp out the sin around us but to proclaim the truth of the gospel and let God do the rest.
Yes, but we our biblical example is to confront our culture with their sin; Case in point: John the Baptist telling Herod he shouldn’t have his brother’s wife. He was simply telling a political leader that his behavior was sinful and should change. He didn’t say anything to him about the coming Messiah, (at least, not on biblical record) If we don’t uphold morality, a standard, the Law is diminished, the truth supressed, and people will have less of a sense of sin, and therefore, won’t flee to the Cross. No, morality can’t save people, but a conviction of sin is the first thing that leads them to repentance. This comes through the conscience and sometimes through the knowledge of knowing your actions are unlawful and disapproved of by the majority. (And I love J. Mac)
Within a democracy, we must legislate morality because in a democracy, the people are the ones who make legislation. All governments are instituted by God and have the responsibility to make proper legislation according to Biblical morality as opposed to ‘morality’ that they make up. In a democracy, “we the people” are the government and therefore must legislate morality. For a Christian in a democracy submitting to govt necessitates that we participate in the changing of that govt to fit with the proper Biblical principles.
Aside from the God and government issue. Christians have a responsibility to protect those who are being oppressed. If we don’t do it, it is called sin. This isnt always accomplished by preaching the gospel, but by preaching the law and hoping to have an opportunity to follow with the good news. For example, abortion is a serious oppression that occurs often in our culture. If we don’t stand up for these who are being oppressed, we have committed a ‘sin of omission.’
What I am outlining is often denigrated as ‘cultural moralism’ but I post to defend it because this is not what it should be called. It should be called obeying God.
People who preach outside of abortion clinics not to murder are not wasting their time, rather they are interceding for one who is slated to die. They are obeying God’s very clear command to do the same. The saving of life is not a waste of time at all. Christians who just spend their time on the couch are really wasting their time, not those who do something good with their time.
My last sentence in my previous post was aimed at Christians first needing to get up and do something to follow God’s command to protect those who cant protect themselves, and second to encourage other Christians to obey God’s commands too.
I highly recommend that everyone interested in this topic to go ahead and download the entire sermon at http://www.gty.org/Products/AudioLessons/80-257 – Jmac goes cover 16 points as why Culture Morality is unbiblical, you can read the entire transcript at http://www.gty.org/Resources/Transcripts/80-257
I just got done having this conversation with a Master’s college and seminary grad and what I came away with is a sort of fatalistic/ isolationism that draws a perfect and absolute opposition between gospel faithfulness and civic responsibility. Under this view if you are concerned with salvation then you can not be concerned with moral behavior and if you are concerned with legislation that protects, advances or defends moral behavior then you can not be concerned for eternal things.
All the arguments turn on the idea that one is by definition opposed to or at least unhelpful to the other. If you reject this false dichotomy then the arguments fall because as Jim stated well, we are given power as individuals to exercise authority in the shaping of our society in a democratic republic. This necessitates a concern for BOTH real moral change as a result of regeneration and FUNCTIONAL moral behavior that, while it is not salvific, IS the responsibility of an authority to advance.
Does moralism save? No, can it be misunderstood to save? YES, but does that mean that it has no value? My answer must be No if I am to be consistent with Jesus summation of the Law as being both concerned with our relationship and responsibility to God AND our relationship and responsibility to other people. Love the Lord your God and Love your neighbor as yourself.
First of all, I feel like a bad parent turning on videos and then running off to take care of pressing items. Sorry, but things have been busy. I would have liked to interact a bit on this earlier on…
Jim, with regard to your first point, it is a snippet of a larger sermon, which I do not believe was intended to articulate a proper balance but to demonstrate the danger of elevating morality to the place of the gospel.
With regard to your second point you make a connection that seems to imply (or say explicitly for that matter) that not standing outside an abortion clinic is sin.
With regard to Jim’s implicit or explicit connecting of failure to defend unborn children (standing outside an abortion clinic) being a sin…
Is that even a question? Certainly society tries hard not to look at it this way, but if abortion is equal to murder then being a accessory to murder is most definitely a sin. If by my inaction, I allow a murder, the least I am guilty of is manslaughter which would probably count as a sin.
Erik, I agree with you that there is great danger in failure to discern the Gospels salvific purpose verses Moral Behaviour’s purely behavioral one, elevating right actions to a right relationship with God but there is also danger in failing to use the authority given to us by our form of government to reward moral behaviors and punish immoral ones. There are at least as many Jews that died due to Christian’s ambivalence (and therefore inaction) in Germany than died by other German’s direct actions… Was that a sin? How could it not be?
Erik,
I do understand that this is just a piece of his sermon that is taken out of the larger context. However, as much as I love MacArthur, I know that he misses the balance on this issue.
My second point is not that it is sin to fail to stand outside an abortion clinic. My point is that it is sin to fail to do something significant for the unborn child that is slated to die. Adam explained this well is comment #10. If Germans were in sin for sitting idly by while Hitler killed 6 million, how can one argue that Americans are not in sin for sitting idly by while ‘planned parenthood’ and its allies kill 50 million (plus more by birth control pills)? So, my point was, you are in sin if you arent doing something significant to protect babies from abortion, but not that you are in sin for failing to do it the way I go about doing it.
Jim,
Your outrage at this sin is commendable, but I really don’t feel you are defending the same thing MacArthur is attacking. Plus accusing him of being out of balance from a snippet from a Youtube video is really not fair. Trying to sanctify people who have not been saved is neither prescribed nor modeled for us in Scripture. Even out of context, it is obvious that this what MacArthur is condemning. We could have long and profitable discussion about how to bring the gospel to people at the point of their sin and defend the weak, but MacArthur is not attacking these endeavors. Please don’t represent that he is.
Jim,
Your outrage at this sin is commendable, but I really don’t feel you are defending the same thing MacArthur is attacking. Plus accusing him of being out of balance from a snippet from a Youtube video is really not fair. Trying to sanctify people who have not been saved is neither prescribed nor modeled for us in Scripture. Even out of context, it is obvious that this what MacArthur is condemning. We could have long and profitable discussion about how to bring the gospel to people at the point of their sin and defend the weak, but MacArthur is not attacking these endeavors. Please don’t represent that he is.