Rob Faircloth

13June2013

What it means to “step out on faith”

June 13, 2013Written By robfaircloth

One common area of concern for believers is finding the “will of God.” Usually, this means that we don’t know exactly which course to take or which decision to make, and would like God to tell us clearly which is the “right one” in order for us to avoid as much discomfort as possible. Some decisions are clear, and don’t require such searching for God’s will: a career in prostitution, for example, is not an option for a believer, nor is life as a master thief. We don’t need to “find God’s will” when faced with such options.

When faced with decisions for which the Bible doesn’t clearly provide answers, however, we sometimes speak of “stepping out on faith” that the course we take or decision we make is the “right one” that God will bless for us. The Bible certainly seems to use such language: we “walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Corinthians 5:7); “the life I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God” (Galatians 2:20). Additionally, in the “faith hall of fame” in Hebrews 11, we are told that several of the faith heroes “stepped out in faith,” as it were, such as Abraham when he left Ur at God’s command and later offered Isaac as a sacrifice, and Noah when he built an ark for an ocean that did not yet exist.

Yet we should take care when we characterize certain of life’s decisions or options as the same sort of walking by faith that Abraham and Noah did, especially when there is, in fact, a different way in which we actually do step out in faith in like fashion. Let me explain.

When we talk about “stepping out on faith,” it is usually in a situation such as beginning a new career, starting a new business, or even proposing marriage (or accepting a proposal). The one who has lost his job of many years and is faced with selecting a new and different income opportunity is said to “step out on faith” that God will bless his choice. The one who has decided to go into business for himself is said to “step out on faith” that God will make this new business fruitful for supporting his family. The one who buys the ring and pops the question is said to “step out on faith” that she is “the one” that God has for him.

The difficulty is that these situations – as significant and potentially life-altering as they are for us – are nothing like what the Bible describes as walking by faith.

Abraham, for instance, was given a specific command by God to leave Ur. He “stepped out in faith” that God knew the destination, even though Abraham didn’t, and that God could fulfill his promise that Abraham would be the father of many nations, though the circumstances didn’t look that way at all. And Abraham was given a specific command by God to offer Isaac as a sacrifice. Abraham “stepped out in faith” that God could, potentially, raise Isaac from the dead, and that even if he did not, God could somehow, someway, nevertheless do what he had promised to do, even though Abraham could not see the solution himself.

Noah was given a specific command by God to build an ark. He “stepped out in faith” that God could forecast the weather even though there had never been the sort of water on earth that would require a boat.

Both men were prepared to face the consequences of obedience to God’s explicit command, even though they could not anticipate what those consequences would be, and whether or not those consequences would be pleasant or miserable for them. For us, the equivalent would be if God tells someone in as clear and as simple terms that he is to quit his job and move to Africa. In that situation, he would be “stepping out on faith” to turn in his resignation, sell his house, and purchase passage across the ocean without knowing what his task would be, where he would live, and how he would support himself.

This sounds romantic and all very “spiritual.” The problem is that we can’t count on God talking to men this way any longer. We believe that God has revealed himself and his will for man in the Scriptures, the Bible. Of course, the Bible does not contain specific answers for every decision we face, though in it God reveals a few specific aspects of his will for us that shape and guide how we live our live on a day-to-day basis. For instance, God wills that men be saved (2 Peter 3:9); that his people be wise (Ephesians 5:17-18); that believers be sanctified (1 Thessalonians 4:3-4); that Christians be submitting (1 Peter 2:13-15); and that we be rejoicing/suffering (1 Thessalonians 5:16-18). Does God want you to start a business? If it doesn’t violate salvation, wisdom, sanctification, submission or suffering, go for it!

Outside specific commands that we not sin, and outside these general expressions of God’s will for us, we are to choose among the many options that face us daily according to wisdom granted to us through the study of his Word and the operation of the Holy Spirit, and obey where there are explicit commands. Therefore, undertaking a new career path is not so much “stepping out on faith” as it is attempting to “walk in wisdom” in an area that God has given us a range of viable options.

Is there any sense, then, in which modern-day believers “step out on faith”? Absolutely.

The businessman who is asked to cook the company’s books must honor the biblical admonitions against theft and false witness. He “steps out on faith” that obeying God is in his best interest, despite the potential of losing his job and standard of living.

The parents who are tempted to give in to “the terrible two’s” (or “they’re just boys,” or the pre-teen syndrome, or the teen years) must consider God’s command for them to “bring them up in the discipline and admonition of the Lord.” They “step out on faith” that the long hours, hard work, and sacrifice (yes, parents…sacrifice!) is God’s best and in their children’s best interest.

The believer who is introverted, shy and has trouble speaking in public must nevertheless obey Christ’s command to “make disciples of all nations” through personal evangelism and witnessing. He “steps out on faith” that any persecution he receives, or discomfort he experiences is worth being faithful to his Lord and participating in God’s call of his people for salvation.

Obeying the commands of Jesus Christ, therefore, require us to “step out on faith.” Let’s exercise faith in that respect before we speak of “stepping out” in what amount to matters of wisdom.

4June2013

The Role of Grace in the Life of the Believer

June 4, 2013Written By robfaircloth

It is in vogue today to speak frequently about “grace” and “the gospel” in Christian circles, to the point that those terms are combined with and attached to virtually every conceivable topic, so that everything is “grace this” and “gospel-centered that”. And we are to preach grace to ourselves and preach the gospel to ourselves on a regular basis, and determine how “gospel truth” applies in any given number of circumstances.

Grace and the gospel (good news) through which we are told of it are fundamental to Christian life, both in the sense that we are saved by grace (Ephesians 2:8-9) and walk in grace (1 Corinthians 15:10; Galatians 3:3). It is only by God’s good pleasure that any sinner is saved, and it is only by God’s good pleasure that any believer who still carries the sin nature (all of us!) is able to become more conformed to the image of Jesus Christ (Romans 8:28-30).

But make no mistake about it: it is God’s expectation that the good pleasure which saves us, and the good pleasure which sustains us, will actually, inevitably and invariably result in a follower who is more holy today than he was yesterday (1 Peter 1:15-16) and more obedient tomorrow than she was today (John 14:15).

While it is true that the believer must continually preach the gospel to himself in order not to fall into legalism or works-righteousness – or the despair that comes from the realization that we fail at both of those – the danger is that we come to see the truth of grace as an excuse for failing to root out sin in our lives, or failing to pursue practical obedience and holiness in all aspects of our walk with God. In other words, too much focus on grace leaves us the subject of Paul’s admonition that we shouldn’t keep on sinning just because we can count on grace to cover our disobedience (Romans 6:1).

We can, in fact, abuse grace and abuse the gospel just as easily as we abuse any other blessing from God.

When we do abuse grace and abuse the gospel, it is revealed in very practical ways and in many of our relationships. The idea that we should “let go and let God” is quite popular, but when it is applied to our obligation to live holy lives, it can have disastrous consequences. Abuse of grace comes about when we fail to take action – action that is frequently expressly commanded in Scripture – on the grounds that God will forgive us, anyway.

For instance, fathers are commanded “do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and admonition of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4). The book of Proverbs fleshes out more fully what the “discipline and admonition of the Lord” is. Thankfully, God’s grace covers our frequent failures as parents to fulfill this command perfectly. We are able to come to God with our frequent sin in parenting and receive forgiveness as with any other sin (1 John 1:8-9), and praise God for that!

However, a father may decide that bringing up his children in the discipline and admonition of the Lord is just too hard, or cramps his style, or isn’t “loving” enough. Similarly, a father may decide that stringent adherence to God’s instruction for parents and the expectations that children behave rightly is too “legalistic”, and besides, if God wants his children to behave, He will take care of that Himself. That father is, to be sure, abusing grace, and cannot count on the favor of God. He might, indeed, be truly saved and enter heaven with God, but he will be held accountable by God for his abuse of grace and his failure to obey the command of Christ with regard to parenting.

Similarly, harboring personal sin is an area where believers might abuse grace. We frequently speak of our “weaknesses” – by which we mean sins to which we are particularly prone – and praise God for his ongoing forgiveness of our sin in those areas. By grace, God does forgive us. But it is an abuse of grace simply to recognize sin, seek and receive forgiveness, and even repent – when “repenting” is merely being sorry, but taking no steps to obey and change into the image of Christ in that area.

For instance, someone may admit to having a temper problem (which the Bible calls “outbursts of anger”) and sincerely seek forgiveness. Yet if he thinks that this will cause God to instantly remove the sin itself, or somehow obligates God to withhold discipline for continued instances of it, he is mistaken, and is abusing God’s grace.

The truth is, grace is a huge blessing for sinners, and as one of those aspects of God’s disposition toward us, we will never exhaust the riches that it holds. One of the riches of grace is that God is merciful, longsuffering and patient with us, and forgives us again and again.

Yet grace is not merely the favorable disposition of God toward us by which he is inclined to forgive us when we disobey him. Another aspect of the riches of grace is that is also the power of God to avoid sin and to obey him in the first place (2 Corinthians 12:9).

A faithful follower of Christ should, indeed, crave grace, know it, depend on it. But we abuse that very grace when all that we crave is mercy for our disobedience. The faithful follower of Christ should also crave from God that aspect of grace that empowers us to obey him.

10May2013

Deviation is Death (but grace…)

May 10, 2013Written By robfaircloth

To be honest, Leviticus usually gets short shrift from most Bible reading plans.

Not that it isn’t included as one of the books to be read along with fan favorites, but believers who come along Leviticus in those plans, or who are looking for devotional material to start or end their day, don’t typically remain there long.

All Scripture, it is said, is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Theoretically, then, it is also profitable for preaching, though one who goes looking for examples in all the sermon outline resources will find that Leviticus is among the least represented. When I undertook to preach through Leviticus at Covenant Grace Baptist Church [Troy AL], I knew of only two other pastors who had done so, neither of which I actually knew, and one of which had been exposed as a heretic. Those facts did not give me much with which to persuade the congregation that the project was worthwhile.

Sample logic chain: all pastors who preach through Leviticus are either unknown or heretics; you are a preacher; therefore, if you preach through Leviticus it will make you either insignificant or apostate (and listening to it can’t be good for us, either).

Fortunately, the premises of the syllogism are untrue: it isn’t “all pastors,” and preaching doesn’t “make” the results.

What, then, does a Bible-believing congregation of Christian believers do with Leviticus? It’s Law, after all, and we are “not under law, but under grace” (Romans 6:14).

What one finds in Leviticus is, among other things, a corrective to a “law-less” grace, a grace that gives ample room for additional sin in order for grace to abound (Romans 6:1). More on that later.

Deviation is Death

A bird’s eye view of Leviticus, with its many provisions for sacrifices, cleanliness, festivals, behavior and temple accoutrements, leaves us with the immediate impression that DEVIATION from the standard of God means certain DEATH. Deviating from God’s standard of holiness results in the death of animals in the burnt offerings, purification offerings, reparation offerings, and others. Sons of Aaron, who offered “strange fire” to the Lord and deviated from his command, suffered instant and dramatic death (during a worship service!). And many violations of God’s commands carried the death penalty.

But Grace is Life

It would be easy to think that Leviticus is no place to find grace, but to do so would be a terrible mistake.

It is, after all, the same holy God who judges sin who also gives instructions for men to be able to come into his presence and not be burned to a crisp. It is the same God who sends unclean people outside the camp who also provides for the manner in which they can re-enter the camp. It is the same God who punishes his people repeatedly, severely, and dramatically who also promises that he will not “forsake them utterly” (Leviticus 26).

One of the first things we see as we come to Leviticus is that we must come without seeing God according to the caricature of God: in the Old Testament, God is angry; in the New Testament Jesus has softened him up.

Furthermore, DEVIATION is still DEATH: either our own, for our sin, or else Christ’s, for our sin. And, while grace is most completely demonstrated in the person and work of Jesus Christ, Leviticus shows us that even in the sacrificial system of the Old Testament and the penalty of death for law-breakers, God was showing his grace to people who did not deserve it.

27March2013

Marriage & “Marriage” in the Hands of Lawyers

March 27, 2013Written By robfaircloth

By the end of this week, the U.S. Supreme Court will have heard arguments on two significant cases related to marriage and to homosexual unions.

I use those terms because at present, they are the primary positions advocated in one degree or another in the pending debate. It is highly improbable, however, that they will remain the primary positions advanced, and it is likely that we will begin to see increasing variations on what people claim to be a “civil right” related to marriage.I use those terms because they offer a bit of clarity. “Homosexual marriage” is an oxymoron; “heterosexual marriage” a redundancy. This is not meant to offend, but to affirm the reality of the situation. According to some, the first legalization of homosexual unions occurred in the Netherlands roughly a decade ago. Corresponding distortions of the language quickly followed. Consequently two millenia of Judeo-Christian understanding of marriage, and its counterpart in the broader culture, is balanced against a few years of its opposite.

The Court won’t release an opinion on these cases for a few months, but in the meanwhile pundits and prognosticators will analyze every question, every posture change, every raised eyebrow, timely cough, and rolled eye to offer suggestions about how the Court will ultimately rule, which should affirm for everyone that predicting such things is as certain as placing the entrails of a chicken on the table and finding in their chaotic distribution a viable plan for funding your retirement account.

In these two cases the Court will address the validity of the national government’s Defense of Marriage Act, which restricts government benefits in some ways to married couples (prohibiting those benefits to homosexual unions), and California’s Proposition 8, which defines marriage as being between one woman and one man.

What will likely emerge as the favorite argument to convince the Court to mandate its view on every State in the union, and on the national government, is that “marriage” is a “civil right,” on par with those recognized on the basis of gender and ethnicity. However, such an approach will prove ultimately unworkable.

Marriage itself is not an unrestricted civil right. Even between one man and one woman, we prohibit some from participating: those who are too young, those who are incompetent, those who are too closely related (notwithstanding jokes about Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi). If “marriage” is deemed to be a fundamental right by the Court, or by some governmental act, the immediate application will be that homosexuals may now participate in it. Yet once it is decided that marriage is no longer limited to one man and one woman (who are of sufficient age, competence and un-relatedness), the question necessarily becomes what precisely is being guaranteed.

Even if upcoming Court decisions or governmental actions specify that the new “marriage” right is for one pair of humans (of sufficient age, competence, and un-relatedness), nothing in reality can be restricted. For if no traditional limitation is placed on “marriage,” then it is reduced merely to a consensual agreement for the public to recognize its existence: that agreement could be made between a man and woman, two men, two women, a threesome, or between a man and his favorite dog, car, or golf club.

In either event, the definition of “marriage” by the Court or government has been put in the hands of lawyers, at best, or elected representatives, at worst (or vice versa, depending on your perspective). It is precisely at this point that human, earthly wisdom pales in comparison to that of the Creator, whose design reveals the answer to an apparently puzzling question, should we only care to look at it.

21March2013

Owen on Guarding the Heart

March 21, 2013Written By robfaircloth

You have many things to keep: you are attentive to keep your life, your property, your reputation, your family; but above all these things, attend to the keeping of the heart, that it is not entangled with sin.

John Owen, in Indwelling Sin in Believers.

It is quite easy to focus solely on those things that Owen describes here, but to forget the heart. That is, if we are considering our belongings, our schedules, our leisure apart from the affections, desires, and attitudes of the heart, we risk losing much more than those temporal, earthly things.

14March2013

The Reformed Pastor: he disciplines the flock

March 14, 2013Written By robfaircloth

In The Reformed Pastor, Richard Baxter challenges pastors to lead their congregations in light of the responsibilities of the calling of God and the proclamation of the gospel.

One of these responsibilities is the exercise of church discipline. Many of us would prefer to leave this idea of church discipline with Baxter in the 1600s, as though we have progressed far beyond such antiquated notions of holiness and sanctification, which are obviously personal and optional preferences akin to Baxter’s hairdo and clothing choices.

Baxter advocates for initial private attempts by the pastor to bring a sinner to repentance, acknowledging the need for particular skill in the matter and sensitivity to the particular temperament of the offender. Even so, Baxter emphasizes the need to “shake their careless hearts” with respect to the sin that they commit. Baxter anticipates the objection that his hearers would surely raise, and which might as well have been prepared for those in our own time who don’t immediately agree with the concept of biblical church discipline. Those protestors would suggest “there is little likelihood that public reproof will do them good,” and that instead they would be “enraged by the shame of it.”

In response, Baxter proposes primarily that it is of little consequence to suggest that God’s “ordinances” (commands) are useless. The utility of a command from our perspective is not the test, but rather our faithfulness to obey it. Further, Baxter argues that there is great utility in “shaming of sin and humbling the sinner,” and in a time such as ours in which “self-esteem” is put forth as the god who led us out of the land of Egypt, and in which we maintain a contra-Pauline philosophy that sin should abound so grace may abound all the more, he could be speaking to our hubristic generation, directly.

Baxter also addresses the fact that discipline is not only for the offending believer, though the goal is repentance and restoration to church fellowship, but that it is also for the witness and testimony of the church. For if the church proclaims the sufficiency of the gospel for salvation, and asserts that those who are in Christ are new creatures transformed by the grace of God, lives that remain unchanged and bound in sin testify more loudly than those proclaimations and assertions. Church discipline is not easy, or popular, yet for Baxter the reformed pastor is duty-bound to so disciple the flock.

12March2013

The Reformed Pastor: he shepherds the flock

March 12, 2013Written By robfaircloth

Richard Baxter first published The Reformed Pastor in 1656, but stepping on toes and tipping sacred cows was apparently known then, too.

Baxter pulls no punches in describing The Reformed Pastor , and pays particular attention to hitting would-pe pastors with the reality of their responsibility to shepherd the flock.Before going further, I should say to those who might recoil at the idea that Baxter, or I, suggest that all pastors must be Reformed, or that his instructions and guidance are only for those pastors who are Reformed, that the “reformation” Baxter refers to is not theological, but practical. Baxter does not address the pastor who has Reformed theology, solely, but all those who should be reformed, practically, which a quick perusal of the contents of his book would persuade us includes pastors of all theological stripes.

Baxter focuses on the biblical admonition to “take heed the flock” (Acts 20:28), and gives pastors specific things that heeding the flock involves. The pastor should:

First, “know every person that belongs to our charge.”

Here Baxter reminds pastors that the charge and responsibility are not simply to manage the flock as a whole, but to care for each individual who is a member of it.

Second, “be acquainted … with the state of all our people…their inclinations and conversations.”

The pastor’s care for each individual goes beyond simply knowing his name and whether he contributes to the offerings regularly.

Third, know the “sins of which they are most in danger.”

This requires that the pastor not merely preach on sin generally (if he overcomes the spiritual inertia and cultural pressure to do even that), but also be aware of the particular sins and temptations that plague individuals, specifically.

Fourth, know “what duties they are most apt to neglect.”

It might seem that this is the easiest component of “taking heed the flock,” at least in the areas of attendance and giving, but once a congregation exceeds a certain size, even this measure of spiritual duties becomes difficult to maintain. Further, Baxter’s encouragement would include other, less visible spiritual duties, such as Bible reading, prayer, and evangelism.

Baxter concludes this admonition by reminding the pastor that “if we know not their temperament or disease, we are not likely to prove successful physicians.”

Are Baxter’s notions antiquated? Impossible? If the pastor is not doing these things, or ensuring that they are done, who is actually shepherding the flock?