Christianity in a Culture Feeding on Self — John MacArthur

And He was saying to them all, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me. (Luke 9:23)

John MacArthur,

If you ever wanted to know how to give an invitation, there’s one. Do you ever wonder what to say at the end of a service? Do you ever wonder what to say to sinners after you’ve preached the gospel? How about this! “Any of you who would like to follow Christ: Deny yourself, take up your cross and follow. And to further explain what that means:

For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake, he is the one who will save it. For what is a man profited if he gains the whole world, and loses or forfeits himself? For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when He comes in His glory, and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. (Luke 9:24-26)

Now let’s get the picture. There are a lot of people following Jesus and His ministry at all points on the spectrum of belief and here Jesus gives an invitation. The issue is “coming after me”, “devoting yourself to me”, “following me”. And the terms are unmistakable: “Let him deny himself.” Doesn’t sound like the “self-esteem gospel” to me. Doesn’t sound like felt-needs to me. Arneomai is the verb and I want you to know what it means. It means to “refuse to associate with”, to “disown”. You want to come to Christ do you? Disown yourself. Refuse any further association with the person you are. It isn’t about adding the whip cream on the top of your already successful life. It isn’t about taking the final step to secure forever the wonder of who you are. It is about disassociating with yourself. The one you want to no longer associate with is you. You’re sick of you. You don’t want anything to do with what you are.  This is hard. This is why it’s hard to believe. A sinner has to come to the place of complete self-denial. Abandoning any hope of self-fulfillment. It’s back to that beatitude-attitude again isn’t it? Blessed are the poor in what? The poor in spirit. The spiritually bankrupt who know they’re destitute. And their spiritual destitution causes them to be also those who mourn, and those that are meek, they’re lowly.

In Philippians chapter 3 the Apostle Paul spent his life up until the point of his conversion in the pursuit of self-fulfillment. Self-fulfillment for him came through the legalistic system of Judaism–the works-righteousness, self-exalting system of Judaism–and Paul had achieved  as much as could be achieved. Philippians 3 talks about the fact that he was circumcised the eighth day, and that he was of the tribe of Benjamin, he was a Jew, and he was kosher–that is he followed all of the traditions–a Hebrew of the Hebrews, he was zealous for his religion to the degree where he persecuted people that were a threat to it. As far as outwardly concerned there was nothing that could be laid against him as a violation of the law. He was all of that that one could hope would be enough to fulfill one’s self as having achieved religious stature before man and God, and he said when he came across Christ, he looked at it and said it was dung. So much for self-fulfillment. It was once gain to him, but when he saw Christ he counted it as what? Loss. It wasn’t neutral. It was devastating.

This is not about self-fulfillment. The gospel is not about self-fulfillment, it is about self-denial. Out of the carcass of self-denial comes the honey of divine grace. An old puritan prayed this way:

LORD, HIGH AND HOLY, MEEK AND LOWLY,
Let me learn that the way down is the way up,
that to be low is to be high,
that the broken heart is the healed heart,
that the contrite spirit is the joyful spirit,
that the repentant soul is the triumphant soul
that to have nothing is to have everything
that to bear the cross is to wear the crown
that to give is to receive

Let me find Your light in my darkness
Your joy in my sorrow
Your grace in my sin
Your riches in my poverty
Your glory in my humiliation
and Your life in my death

We need to tell people that if you want to be saved–that if you want to follow Jesus, you want to come after Him–it’s the end of you. All your ambitions, all your desires set aside in utter submission to His Lordship. It’s the attitude of that publican in Luke 18. The Pharisee goes in to the temple: “I thank you that I’m not like other people…”, you know the story. And what is the publican doing? He won’t look up, his head is bowed, he’s pounding his chest, and he’s crying out: “God be merciful to me a sinner.” The Pharisee was happy with himself. The publican didn’t want any further association with himself. That’s where we have to take the sinner. This by the way then becomes a way of life.

When you present some shallow gospel that calls for no self-denial what do you expect people to live like from then on? If they think that Jesus is in the business of giving them what they want does that ever end? Does that ever end? And guess what happens as soon as Jesus doesn’t deliver.

No, we begin  at the point of self-denial and, listen, that’s how you come to salvation at the point of total self-denial and then the Christian life is the struggle to stay that way. And it’s a struggle. I was there when I was saved but it’s a battle to stay there because my flesh rises up and makes it’s demands, doesn’t it? So I have a little set of things written that I keep close by to remind of the fact that I came to Christ in self-denial and I want to live my life that way. This is what it says:

When you are neglected, unforgiven, or when you are purposely set at naught and you sting and you hurt with the insult of that oversight, but your heart is happy, being counted worthy to suffer for Christ, that is dying to self.

When your good is evil spoken of, when your wishes are crossed and your advice is disregarded and your opinions are ridiculed, and you refuse to let anger rise in your heart or even defend yourself, you take it all patiently in loving silence, you’re dying to self.

And when you lovingly and patiently bear any disgrace, any regularity, any annoyance, when you can stand face to face with folly and extravagance and spiritual insensitivity, and endure it as Jesus did, that is dying to self.

When you are content with any food, any money, any clothing, any climate, any society, any solitude, any interruption by the will of God, that is dying to self.
And when you never care to refer to yourself in conversation or record your own good works, or itch after commendation from others, and when you truly love to be unknown, that is dying to self.

When you see your brother prosper and have his needs wondrously met, and can honestly rejoice with him in spirit and feel no envy and never question God, though your needs are greater and still unmet, that is dying to self.

And when you can receive correction, and reproof from one of less stature than yourself and humbly admit inwardly as well as outwardly that he’s right and find no resentment and no rebellion in your heart, that is dying to self.

That’s how you came, and that’s how you stay. We are selling a kind of evangelicalism that is deadly to this. You can’t build a gospel around people having self-fulfillment, and then not expect them to think that that’s what God has to deliver to them from then on. This is another way to attack the issue of Lordship.

Furthermore, go back to Luke 9. Jesus didn’t just say: “if anyone wishes to come after Me let him deny himself”, but he took us to the level, or to the extent that that self-denial must go when He said this: “…and take up his cross daily”, take up his cross daily. And the daily there is important because the daily means we’re not talking about an event, we’re talking about a way of life. In the fourteenth chapter and the twenty-seventh verse of Luke, Jesus essentially says the same thing. You take up your cross and you keep carrying it. What does this mean? Well, what did a cross mean to them? It didn’t mean to them what it means to a Keswic preacher. It doesn’t mean some psychological self-crucifixion. It simply meant to them what it was: an instrument of execution.

They knew what crucifixion was. The Romans crucified people. The Persians had sort of launched crucifixion. The Egyptians used crucifixion. There were other barbarians that used crucifixion. It was somewhat common. There had been one occasion of a rebellion in Jerusalem in which 800 Jews were crucified there for a revolt which followed the death of Herod the Great. The Proconsul Varus crucified 2,000 Jews. They knew exactly what a cross meant. A cross was the most heinous form of torture and death. And what Jesus is saying here cannot be mistaken. He’s not talking about something psychological here. He’s not talking about something even spiritual. He’s talking about something very physical: “I want you to deny yourself and be ready to die because that’s what it might require.” In fact you need to be ready to die any day and every day. When Paul said I die daily, he wasn’t saying that I get up spiritually and I execute my ego. He was simply saying every single day I anticipate the possibility of my death so that in my mind  I’m dying everyday. So many plots of the Jews, so many plots of the Gentiles. Paul is talking in his own personal testimony of dying daily, to the Corinthians, the same thing that Jesus is speaking about here. So, Jesus says, you want to follow Me do you? You want to come after Me? It’s the end of you. Even to the degree that every day you put your life on the line should I desire to take it. And then, the literal Greek closes the verse: “And let him be following Me.” Self-denial, cross-bearing, and loyal obedience, those are the life patterns of those who are truly the followers of Jesus Christ…

…It’s hard to believe, but you wouldn’t think that today, in fact, today, it’s easy to believe and in fact it’s getting easier every month…Over the last few months we have been told that you don’t have to even know there was a Jesus. You don’t even have to know there was a Bible! You don’t even have to know the true God! In an article in Christianity Today I read, a couple of editions ago, people are saved by Jesus who don’t even know Jesus is saving them. This is no-Lordship carried to the extreme, this is no Jesus! Some of you may feel I’m a little extreme on this, but I’m just telling you what Scripture says. We have certainly succumbed to the fundamental opposition of sinners in a culture that supports and grows self-love. We’ve literally succumbed to that. Everybody is in to self-love, and fulfillment, personal fulfillment, so that’s the way we’ll put the Gospel — and there are lots of people all around the world who don’t know about Jesus, so let’s get them in the kingdom without having to know about Jesus. If we have to we’ll “trans-dispensationalize” them to get them in.

Martin Luther launched the great Reformation of course with his 95 Theses on the door of the Wittenberg Castle Church. The fourth of his protesting assertions, the fourth, was that a penitent heart was characterized by a self-hate…quote: “penance remains, while self-hate remains.” Luther said true penitence is self-hate, and he says that remains in those who enter the kingdom of heaven. This is essential for the Gospel.

“Depart from me O Lord, for I am a sinful man”, “Woe is me, for I am disintegrating” says Isaiah…This is so alien to a culture feeding on self-love and having every whimsical need met insisting on rights, privileges, equal respect, reward, and honor for everything.

taken from: General Session #1 address given by John MacArthur at the 2003 Shepherds’ Conference. (emphasis added)

View the original article here

“Tradtional” or “Natural” family? A revealing look at language in the culture war

I once had a student suggest that his peers and instructors dispense entirely with the term “natural family” and forever replace it with the “traditional family.”  The term “natural” is offensive, it was said, for those students who were not raised in such an environment.  I can appreciate that.  However…

Language is a telling thing.  How it evolves indicates the underlying changes in cultural norms and mores and understandings.  We no longer use the term “negro” to describe African-Americans (preferring that label instead) in order to reflect a society where racial equality is the norm and goal.

We see this in other places as well.  When sexuality was socially and morally expected to be confined to the marital bedroom, a man and woman would only “court” prior to marriage.  Romance and affection were seen exclusively and properly as preparatory for marriage.  But as romance and affection devolved into recreational activities, not tied to marriage, we began “dating.”  And when recreational dating gave way to the cultural preoccupation with sexuality — when the knot tied between sex and marriage was entirely undone — we stopped dating, and started to “hook up” since the interest that men and women have with each other is less about marriage or even innocent fun, but primarily about sex.

Likewise, a child born out of wedlock is no longer a “bastard” or “illegitimate” (both implying a moral standard someone failed to meet), but is instead simply designated as a “birth to an unmarried mother” (morally neutral language).

So the labels we use may or may not reflect the permanent nature of things.  They may or may not reflect the metaphysical reality of a thing.  That is they may or may not accurately capture or fully describe the essence of the object we are trying to capture or describe.  If they do, then changing the label is problematic.  If they do not, then changing the label may be quite appropriate (negro to African-American, for instance).

The refusal by many to use the term “natural” to refer to families where children are reared in the context of an in-tact conjugal marriage is telling as well.  The growing preference is to use the term “traditional” or even “conventional.”  Why?  Because we all know traditions and conventions change and evolve.  Moreover, the term “natural” refers to the order, design, permanence of things (nature).  But tradition implies that the marriage or family structures are arbitrarily determined by human conventions or customs, and nothing more.  Indeed, the very use of the term “natural family” is met with serious offense, since “natural” attempts to capture a metaphysical reality and ontological essence, of the family (whereas “traditional” is simply a nominal label for a certain, past, family arrangement; purely a heuristic label).  It is said, assumed, that those who insist on using the label “natural” are basically backwards irrational knuckle-dragging cavemen, or worse, fundamentalists.

But let me ask, which term, natural or traditional, is the most rational?  Attempt, if you can, to arrive on planet Earth with only the powers of reason at your disposal.  What will you observe about human families?

You will observe that, biologically, children are produced exclusively by men and women engaged in procreated sexual intercourse.  Other sexual activities fail to produce human offspring.  They appear to be, err, less natural in terms of sexual reproduction.  Moreover, you observe, err, out in nature, that other species, particularly those of mammals (you are told this is the order to which the species of humans belong as well) produce all of their offspring in the same way.

You will observe that, sociologically, these men and women virtually everywhere regardless of language or geographic location, for as far back as history records, organize themselves into families where children remain with and are raised by a mother and father.  You will further observe that deviations from that familial arrangement tend to turn out poorly for the well-being and even survival of children.  For their own survival, so it seems, they organize themselves this way as both evolutionary theory and earthly theological understandings explain concerning the, err, nature of things.

You will observe that, politically, societies everywhere, even if they briefly experiment with other arrangements, quickly construct legal systems designed to promote and protect that biological and sociological most basic unit of family structures and discourage or under-privilege others, for the well-being and survival of the society.

You, as a reasonable person, having never thumped a bible in your alien life, might use a word to describe what you are observing concerning the family arrangements, reproductive patterns, developments, behavior, of humans.  For biological, sociological, and political reasons, you might use the word “natural” to describe what a minority of earthlings now want to call “traditional” families.  Reflecting on all you have observed, it would hardly occur to you that this arrangement is artificial, arbitrary, unnatural, purely conventional; it is rather quite permanent, most helpful, and so you surmise it to be clearly natural to the species.  You might even say that such arrangements appear to be present in the very nature or essence of humankind.  The existence of other sexual arrangements wouldn’t lead you to conclude otherwise about the natural family arrangement.  Deviations do not displace natural orders, you know.  You will be quite puzzled that some seemingly intelligent earthlings have changed the way they refer to family arrangements, despite the evidence you have so easily observed.  You are astonished that some earthlings today (at least those in one corner of the globe who ironically pride themselves as the most reasonable men on earth) are concerned far more with offending others than rationality or human flourishing.  You consider saying something about this, suggesting that the label “natural” is not only empirically well-established but also socially beneficial.  But before you do, my alien friend, you had better say it and disembark for your home planet as quickly as possible, cause them’s fightin’ words today fella!

View the original article here