by Jeremiah Johnson
What does it mean for believers to stand together for the gospel?
In simple terms, it means that while they might have other
theological differences, they are united in affirming the gospel’s core
tenants. Specifically, they agree that sinners are justified not by
their own efforts, but by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ
alone.
It’s that last element in particular that offends and annoys our
pluralistic, inclusive society. But as F. F. Bruce explains, the
gospel’s exclusivity flows directly out of Christ’s nature in His
incarnation.
He is, in fact, the only way by which men and women may come to the
Father, there is no other way. If this seems offensively exclusive, let
it be borne in mind that the one who makes this claim is the incarnate
Word, the revealer of the Father. If God has no avenue of communication
with mankind apart from his Word . . . mankind has no avenue of approach
to God apart from that same Word, who became flesh and dwelt among us
in order to supply such an avenue of approach. [1]
Standing together for the gospel, then, is standing in agreement with
Christ’s own assertions to His uniqueness: “I am the way, and the
truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me” (John 14:6).
It’s echoing the words Peter boldly proclaimed to the Sanhedrin, that
“there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under
heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).
In spite of the innate exclusivity of the gospel, the world’s
religions attempt to position themselves as co-laborers with
Christianity. They might highlight similar stances on social issues, or
simply try to identify a common enemy—whatever it takes to present the
illusion of unity.
Worse still, many Christians are all too happy to lend those false
religions spiritual credibility by operating as cobelligerents.
Such ecumenical partnerships require a muddying of doctrinal waters.
Theological distinctives are downplayed or set aside in the name of
unity, as both sides come to a polemical cease-fire in pursuit of a
common goal.
The 1994 ecumenical treatise Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium
(ECT) is a prime example. In an effort to kick-start “a springtime of
world missions,” influential leaders from both faiths attempted to
identify and affirm theological common ground for the sake of furthering
the reach of the gospel (you can read the full document here).
In reality, they ignored centuries of church history and asserted vague platitudes about unity in Christ.
All who accept Christ as Lord and Savior are brothers and sisters in
Christ. Evangelicals and Catholics are brothers and sisters in Christ.
We have not chosen one another, just as we have not chosen Christ. He
has chosen us, and he has chosen us to be his together (John 15).
However imperfect our communion with one another, however deep our
disagreements with one another, we recognize that there is but one
church of Christ. There is one church because there is one Christ and
the church is his body. However difficult the way, we recognize that we
are called by God to a fuller realization of our unity in the body of
Christ.
But what gospel were they uniting behind? Let’s not forget or
ignore—as the signatories of ECT must have—that Catholic dogma
pronounces anathema on anyone who preaches justification by faith alone. Here is the stark condemnation, spelled out by the Council of Trent:
If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in
such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in
order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in
any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of
his own will; let him be anathema. (Canon IX)
If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also
increased before God through good works; but that the said works are
merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause
of the increase thereof; let him be anathema. (Canon XXIV)
How can evangelicals set aside such a clear repudiation of
justification by faith in the name of unity? How can the two sides claim
unity in Christ when their views of Christ’s work are so thoroughly divergent? Moreover, what good is that unity once the doctrinal differences have been swept under the rug?
But that wasn’t even the worst aspect of ECT. In addition to propping
up the frail façade of unity, the document also prohibited attempts to
“win ‘converts’ from one another’s folds,” downplaying such efforts as
“sheep stealing” that would “undermine the Christian mission.” It
further argued that,
in view of the large number of non-Christians in the world and the
enormous challenge of our common evangelistic task, it is neither
theologically legitimate nor a prudent use of resources for one
Christian community to proselytize among active adherents of another
Christian community.
In one fell swoop, ECT declared the entire Catholic Church—which
today claims more than a 1.25 billion followers worldwide—off limits
from the gospel, consigning them to Rome’s demonic heresies. Why would believers champion such feeble unity to the exclusion of so vast a mission field?
Ecumenism is not true unity. It’s a lie agreed upon—one that inoculates lost souls to the life-transforming truth of the gospel.
And as the world becomes increasingly pluralistic, believers need to
be committed to protecting the purity of the gospel, resisting the
world’s urging to mix it with error. We need to keep clear in our minds
the black and white distinction between truth and error, and not succumb
to the influence of an increasingly gray world. Here’s how John
MacArthur describes the mindset believers need to foster:
Christians preach an exclusive Christ in an inclusive age. Because of
that, we are often accused of being narrow-minded, even intolerant.
Many paths, it is said, lead to the top of the mountain of religious
enlightenment. How dare we insist that ours is the only one? In reality,
however, there are only two religious paths: the broad way of works
salvation leading to destruction, and the narrow way of faith in the
only Savior leading to eternal life (Matthew 7:13-14). Religious people are on either one or the other. [2]
Put simply, standing together for the gospel means standing together against ecumenical movements that assault and betray the exclusivity of Christ.
By Cameron Buettel
The threat of infiltrators is something that secular society takes
very seriously. Anyone who enters the United States from abroad knows
that. Fingerprint scanners, sophisticated passport technology, and
heavily armed border security all indicate that imposters and frauds
will not be permitted entry.
It’s tragic that the church isn’t as strict when it comes to
prohibiting spiritual imposters. The poor protection of the church is an
outrage–especially in light of Christ’s repeated warnings to His
disciples about false disciples (Matthew 7:21–23), false prophets (Matthew 7:15–20), false christs (Matthew 24:23–26), and false shepherds (John 10:1–13).
The Lord could not have been clearer about the vital need to guard His people from false shepherds and other spiritual threats:
Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter by the door into
the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, he is a thief and a
robber. But he who enters by the door is a shepherd of the sheep. To
him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his
own sheep by name and leads them out. . . . All who came before Me are
thieves and robbers. . . . The thief comes only to steal and kill and
destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly. I am
the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.
He who is a hired hand, and not a shepherd, who is not the owner of the
sheep, sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep and flees, and the
wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hired
hand and is not concerned about the sheep. (John 10:1–3, 8, 10–13)
Throughout the history of the church, God has set aside men to
faithfully preach the Word, care for spiritual needs, build up the Body
of Christ, and protect it from the influence of false teachers and their
heresies—in essence, God has called them to shepherd His sheep. But
recent decades have seen the rise of church leaders who see themselves,
not as servants and protectors of the flock, but as visionaries whose
flocks exist to support them and their visions.
Earlier in this series,
I quoted a statement from one of America’s most influential
churches—Elevation in North Carolina—regarding their purpose and
pursuit: “Elevation is built on the vision God gave Pastor Steven. We
will aggressively defend our unity and that vision.” [1]
“Pastor Steven” is Steven Furtick, and his vision has nothing to do
with feeding or protecting his sheep. Early on in his ministry he told
his congregation:
If you know Jesus I am sorry to break it to you: This church is not
for you. “Yeah but I just gave my life to Christ last week at
Elevation”—last week was the last week that Elevation Church existed for
you. . . . Over five hundred people have given their lives to Jesus for
the first time in this church in the last five months . . . If that
doesn’t get you excited and you need the Doctrines of Grace as defined
by John Calvin to excite you, you are in the wrong church. Let me get a
phone book. There are seven hundred and twenty churches in Charlotte,
I’m sure we can find one where you can stuff your face until you’re so
obese spiritually that you can’t even move. [2]
Furtick’s desire to create a church for unbelievers fails to
recognize what a church is—a body of believers. The Greek word for
church, ekklesia, refers to those whom Christ has called out from
the world to be His people and gather together in His name. Pastors
like Furtick aren’t interested in shepherding; they ignore Christ’s
charge to tend His flock (John 21:17). They’re content to let the true sheep starve while they chase goats.
But that’s far from the only way modern shepherds are abusing their
flocks. Some prey on the financial resources of their congregations,
using their sheep to fund lavish lifestyles. Others manipulate their
followers, using them to inflate the sales figures for their latest
books, or saturate social media with their influence. Still others
simply see their flocks as stepping stones into the high-profile and
lucrative world of conference speaking. In every case, these false
shepherds have no interest in the hard work of tending a flock—in most
cases, they’re eager to cut and run as soon as the work becomes too
trying or time consuming.
That’s a feeble, pathetic, and frankly dangerous substitute
for the kind of shepherds we see in God’s Word. When David wrote about
the Lord as his shepherd, he described the rich blessings of living
under a gentle shepherd’s care. He didn’t lack anything he needed (Psalm 23:1). He was led to safe pasture and able to rest there in safety (Psalm 23:2–3). And David’s Shepherd was always armed and ready to protect him from evil threats (Psalm 23:4–5).
In stark contrast, the Bible also describes abusive shepherds who are
derelict in their duty—leaders who are anything but selfless or
sacrificial. Jude described that kind of church leader as those who have
“crept in unnoticed” and are “ungodly persons who turn the grace of our
God into licentiousness” (Jude 4). They are portrayed as “shepherds feeding themselves” (Jude 12, ESV).
John MacArthur comments on that phrase, saying it was “indicating that
the apostates shepherded no one but themselves. Their only interest was
self-interest and self-gratification—at the expense of anyone else.” [3]
He expands on that evaluation when commenting on 1 Peter 5:3, and what it means for pastors to abuse their authority, “lording it over” their flocks:
Finally, those called to shepherd can be imperiled by the desire to sinfully dominate others. “Lording it over” (katakurieuō) connotes intensity in domineering over people and circumstances (see Diotrephes as an example in 3 John 9-10).
Any kind of autocratic, oppressive, and intimidating leadership, with
elements of demagoguery—traits that typically characterize the
leadership style and methodology of unregenerate men—is a perversion of
the overseer’s office. [4]
Abusive shepherds have been an ever-present threat to God’s people,
going all the way back to the Old Testament. Ezekiel 34 is entirely
devoted to rebuking Israel’s leaders for failing to faithfully shepherd
His people:
Thus says the Lord God, “Woe, shepherds of Israel who have been
feeding themselves! Should not the shepherds feed the flock? You eat the
fat and clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fat sheep
without feeding the flock. Those who are sickly you have not
strengthened, the diseased you have not healed, the broken you have not
bound up, the scattered you have not brought back, nor have you sought
for the lost; but with force and with severity you have dominated them.
They were scattered for lack of a shepherd, and they became food for
every beast of the field and were scattered. My flock wandered through
all the mountains and on every high hill; My flock was scattered over
all the surface of the earth, and there was no one to search or seek for
them.”
Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: “As I live,”
declares the Lord God, “surely because My flock has become a prey, My
flock has even become food for all the beasts of the field for lack of a
shepherd, and My shepherds did not search for My flock, but rather the
shepherds fed themselves and did not feed My flock; therefore, you
shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: ‘Thus says the Lord God, “Behold, I
am against the shepherds, and I will demand My sheep from them and make
them cease from feeding sheep. So the shepherds will not feed
themselves anymore, but I will deliver My flock from their mouth, so
that they will not be food for them.”’” (Ezekiel 34:2–10)
Abusive shepherds are preoccupied with feeding their own bellies and
have no concern or compassion for feeding those under their
care—especially the weak and vulnerable who need that care the most.
They fail to retrieve the lost and inexcusably leave them vulnerable and
easy prey to roaming predators. Modern pastors and leaders who exercise
such dereliction of duty should soberly consider Ezekiel 34 and God’s
blistering condemnation of their Old Testament predecessors.
More importantly, their abused sheep need to come under the watchful
care of a true shepherd who will feed them properly, keep them safe, and
drive out the wolves from among them. Next time we’ll consider what
those sheep ought to look for in a godly shepherd.
(Source: http://www.gty.org/blog/B160229/abusive-shepherds)