The Fundamentals of Sanctification and Cultural Fundamentalism
Previously, I posted a piece called, “The Fundamentals of Sanctification.” The basic proposition of that article is that the Bible gives us a fundamental understanding of sanctification: sanctification means putting off the old man and putting on the new man, it means separating from the world and clinging to God, it means rejecting the old ways and adopting new ones.
I put it this way in the previous article:
You can’t really have sanctification if you won’t put off the world.
Paul said it this way:
Rm 12.1-2 ¶ Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. 2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.
“Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed…”
We are all familiar with this. The concept is essential to Christian growth.
What I didn’t do in the previous article was make any specific application. When fundamentalists start talking about applications of this, the cool kids seem to react with verbal put downs. “Legalist!” “Pharisee!” “That’s just cultural fundamentalism!” (This last one seems to be the latest favorite.)
Let’s try to think this through in an area where we can probably find some agreement. As far back as Tertullian, you can find believers reacting in horror to any connection with the theater. In his day, he objected to the live performances on stages. From what I’ve read about the Roman empire, some of these performances (if not most) were shockingly immoral. It is little wonder that Tertullian was exercised about it.
In our day, we get our theater in many different forms. We can buy it on little discs, get it streaming into various boxes in our homes, attend movie theaters, or even (in some places) go to live performances as in Tertullian’s day. And some people probably even get it through over-the-air television antennas. So primitive!
Christians make various applications when it comes to theater. If you are a Bible believer, I think you would agree that some theater ought to be banned outright. (Pornography as theater) That would be at the far end of the spectrum. I’ve met believers who turn their TVs off “when it swears at me.” These days, you might as well just not have one if that is your standard. (There’s an idea!)
So, the spectrum of choices ranges from cutting theater out completely to allowing certain amounts of it in your life but cutting it off somewhere on the right side of porn. Is that fair?
Think back over our sanctification lists as mentioned in the last post (go back and read through them again to refresh your memory).
Should you allow yourself to watch explicit sex acts in theater offerings that aren’t “porn”? Movies and increasingly television seem to make this part of many shows, as if there is a rule that we can’t have a drama without it. What if the show doesn’t depict it, but strongly leads up to it and “fades to black” just in time? What then? Most conservative Christians will be increasingly uneasy with any inclusion of these depictions in the theater they consume. The more explicit it gets, the more uneasy they become.
What are we describing here? The Christian conscience, born again and renewed after the new man, is oriented towards the way of the Spirit, the wisdom from above, and wants to produce the fruit of the Spirit. In the flesh, there may be an attraction, but when we are walking in the Spirit, we will put down the impulses of the flesh and obey the Spirit. We will choose not to watch some shows. We might even choose to cut them out altogether since the performing arts are so powerful, our flesh might overrule the Spirit and we find ourselves like Paul in Romans 7, “For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want.” (Rm 7.19)
Fundamentally, there is a choice that must be made with respect to the things of the world. Christians will choose against the most gross depictions and tend towards the more conservative applications in the choice spectrum. Individual believers may draw the line at varying points on the spectrum, but the orientation is towards purity and loveliness. The shoes are pointed in the direction of holiness.
This cannot be called legalism. It is a fundamental aspect of Christian life. On one hand are the works of the flesh, on the other the fruit of the Spirit. Peter tells us that “applying all diligence” we are to add into our faith the virtues he lists in 2 Pt 1. We are to make a serious and determined effort at living this way.
On an individual basis, choices may vary somewhat as I mentioned. Suppose, however, you are thinking as a group in your church. You may be confronted with some issue where the world is strong in your community or even among your members. As a group, you can covenant to your own standard. Bible-believing churches have done this historically. We sometimes laugh at old church covenants because culture moved on and it is quaint to think that such amusements as shocked the “old-timers” should be an issue today.
Nevertheless, is it legalism for a group of Christians to decide together that they will hold a standard that promotes holiness? They aren’t saying, “hold this standard and you will be a Christian.” They are saying, “we want to hold this as the standard in our church to help one another towards holiness.”
What if a preacher, instead of creating a church covenant, decides to lead his people by preaching against various expressions of worldliness? Can he be dismissed as a mere “cultural fundamentalist” or a “legalist”? Should he not warn his flock about the dangers and lack of wisdom in following the world? Should he not promote pointing the congregation in the direction of holiness?
If we are going to follow the Bible, we will tend towards holiness.
That is the theme of these essays on the Fundamentals of Sanctification. We should promote in ourselves and others a walk of holiness, a walk towards God and away from the world. Yes, it is true there are many ways of applying these matters and individual choices may differ, but Christians ought to delight in the Lord, not in the world. That’s what the Bible teaches about sanctification.
Don Johnson is the pastor of Grace Baptist Church of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada.
Photo by Hamish Kale on Unsplash
Without injecting a note of cynicism into this discussion, I believe that a too-common practical definition of a legalist is: “Anyone whose standards are stricter than mine.” Surely, there is latitude among believers in the practical outworking of our sanctification. But there is a great need for each of us to humbly seek to improvingly apply the Bible’s principles to our lives, shun the world, and walk closer and more like the Savior. Both of these articles are good and helpful.
Okay Don. Thank you for your second article. It helps to see how you are arranging this material.
I have a few questions that remain. I’ll try to be brief (we’ll see how that goes).
Your first premise is that “you cannot have sanctification if you won’t put off the world.”
Question 1: Theologians explain sanctification as having three aspects—present, progressive, and perfect. In terms of this discussion, you are referring to progressive sanctification…is that correct?
Question 2: What do you mean by “world?” I asked this after the previous article, but it still remains unanswered. You cite Romans 12:1-2, specifically “do not be pressed into the world’s mold,” but then you jump to Tertullian and from there into an explanation of how we should think about entertainment. However, the apostle John uses the term world in at least four different ways (and I acknowledge that there may be some differences between the way John uses world and the way Paul does). World can be the physical ball of the earth, personal possessions, people (a crowd or mankind), and the realm controlled by Satan. I’m assuming here that you mean the realm controlled by Satan (a worldly ethos or philosophy)…is that correct?
Question 3: If you are referring to the realm of Satan’s control as the definition of worldliness, then I’m assuming here that you believe there is a connection between theater-style entertainment (stage, video) and worldliness. Is that correct?
Question 4: You differentiate between theater that is explicitly wicked (pornography) and other cultural expressions such as swearing but you don’t really allow for any form of theater that could be considered morally neutral. I think I’ve read you right. The cut off points you cite are pornography, swearing, and no theater-style entertainment at all. Here is your actual paragraph:
“So, the spectrum of choices ranges from cutting theater out completely to allowing certain amounts of it in your life but cutting it off somewhere on the right side of porn. Is that fair?”
I’m assuming that you are no longer referring to stage productions (Broadway, Shakespeare, etc.). Is that correct? Are you also allowing that some choices on your spectrum are morally neutral, or do you think than any form of theater-style entertainment is wrong?
This brings you to your second premise. Holiness is not legalism. You seem to answer my previous question by acknowledging that Christians tend to orient themselves toward more “conservative applications in the choice spectrum.” In fact, you state that “choices may vary somewhat….” In other words, there are some theater-style entertainment choices that are not worldly.
Question 1: Can you state specifically what non-worldly choices are?
Question 2: Do you agree that church covenants that emphasize cultural applications in the choice spectrum need to be updated when culture changes?
Question 3: Do you think that the charge of legalism is fair if those cultural applications become the sole determining factor in whether or not a Christian is progressing in sanctification?
Hi Matt,
Well, that is a lot of ground to cover. I’ll try to follow your order in answering questions.
1. I am speaking of progressive sanctification.
2. World, as I see it, is that spirit that dominates mankind’s thinking and behaviours. I am not sure I want to say “controlled” by Satan, since Satan is not a god, but certainly dominated by his thinking and wickedness. Fallen humanity is an all too willing ally in promoting this approach to life.
3. “…then I’m assuming here that you believe there is a connection between theater-style entertainment (stage, video) and worldliness. Is that correct?” No, I’m not saying “performing arts = worldliness” but that there are expressions of the performing arts that are more or less worldly. I think most would agree that pornography is completely of the world. Some other performances are less so, but each has to be evaluated on its own merits. For example, “It’s A Wonderful Life” is a fairly innocuous tale, notwithstanding its unbiblical angelology, but there is a worldly philosophy subtly written into the plot and story line. I would guess most conservative Christians would not feel conscience stricken about watching it. Nonetheless, elements of the world are there. That’s what puts decision making in this arena on a spectrum, and why Christians will make differing applications, albeit applications tending in the same direction.
4. I think the previous answer gives the answer to “is any form of theater-style entertainment wrong?” But to explicitly answer, no, I don’t think theater itself is wrong, but it is an area where the fundamentals of sanctification will prompt Christians to turn away from some forms of it, or even make the decision to avoid it altogether. I don’t think we have to make the “total abstinence” application with theater personally, but we have to be aware of worldliness in its many manifestations and make decisions about where we will go and what we will “consume” in this and every other area of the human arts.
On your second set of questions
1. What are non-worldly choices? I think Christians have to make personal choices (or collective choices in the fellowship of their church or in submission to the regulations of an institution they join themselves to). My choices are (I think) towards holiness, but I am not confident that everyone would agree. There are books I won’t read, places I won’t go, movies/television etc that I choose to leave out of my life. However, it is impossible to create a list that satisfies everyone. My point is not that we must create the perfect list, but we must acknowledge the biblical philosophy. There is a world that Christians should shun. There is a God in heaven whom Christians should cling to and pursue.
2. In general, I am not in favor of church covenants. I don’t mock them, or churches which have them, but I think there are better ways to accomplish the goals of church covenants through preaching and Bible study. The Holy Spirit will work in the lives of his people. However, in certain circumstances, a church might need to take a public stand and call its members to it. (I’m thinking about churches I know in Las Vegas, for example.)
3.I would agree with this. If we think rule-based thinking equals sanctification, we are heading towards legalism. There is a legalism on the left, though, where you must conform to the new rules, or you are a heretic who needs to be dispatched. Humanity likes rules.
I hope that helps.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Hey Don, I think your explanation has some merit and I appreciate you writing it. I think I’ve been able to synthesize your thoughts here. Please let me know if I’ve missed something. (1) You acknowledge that there is a spectrum of entertainment choices that are more worldly (one end) or less worldly (other end) and that Christians have some liberty of conscience to determine which they will engage and which they will not. That’s a summary of your term “spectrum.” I think that’s what you mean. Please correct me if I’m reading it wrong.
(2) It is not sinful (worldly) to attend some theater-style events. The important thing is that we are aware of the dangers of events like these and how they can encourage sinful activity (actively or passively).
(3) It is impossible to create a list of cultural “sins” (let’s call these negative spiritual activities) and because of that we are responsible for pursuing holiness (positive spiritual activities). There is a danger of creating such a list because it leans toward a “rules based thinking equals sanctification.”
I’m not really sharing my own views here. I’m just trying to get to the meat of what you’re arguing. As I mentioned, I think there are some things here that merit strong consideration. There are also a few things I might mention such as reference to Satan (Eph 2:2, 1 Jn 5:19).
Now, I might be getting ahead of you, but how do you see separation in light of your points? If it is impossible to create a perfect list of cultural things that are inherently sinful (I would say these are things that are not obvious like pornography), and some of these things can be categorized as being “in-between,” on the spectrum (such as theater-style entertainment), and that one’s own conscience should be a guide as to when or when not to participate … how can anyone else determine if those actions are right or wrong (and thus separate over them?)
I’ve likely stumbled over your next article here. If not, I would be eager to read one that addresses this. The reason is, up to this point, I think most serious believers, whether self-proclaimed fundamentalist or not, would generally agree with most of your points. I think even many of the “cool kids” as you put it would agree with you. So what test is there, what tool exists, to evaluate the choices of another believer and conclude that such behavior warrants separation?
Well, I don’t know if you have stumbled over my next article so much as forcing me to think of it!
On separation, a few brief thoughts. I find separation to be a too broad term. We all use it, but we mean different things by it. In one sense we mean, “I have nothing in common with you.” (That would be the theme of Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism.) In another sense we mean, “I’m not going to walk down that road with you.” This would be what we were saying to neo-evangelicalism before it became evangelicalism. It’s what we who hold to a fundamentalist philosophy continue to say to evangelicals.
When it comes to issues of sanctification, there are some churches who run camps or sponsor youth activities and such who are too close to the world, in my opinion, so I won’t walk with them. That doesn’t mean I denounce them as unbelievers, but it does mean I won’t cooperate with their efforts or send young people from my church to their activities.
When it comes to lists, I don’t think that it is hard for me to create a list of cultural sins, as you say. I can create lists I would hold to personally, or would lead my church to hold. My lists might define my fellowship with other Christians or other churches, etc.
However, I think this line of thinking isn’t really profitable. The problem that many will not acknowledge is that they should pull back from the world. They shouldn’t seek to emulate the world in any way. There should be a philosophy of life that points towards God and away from the world. There is such a thing as godliness and worldliness. Christians should pursue godliness. That will usually mean that we are out of step with culture. So be it. We aren’t here to redeem culture. We are here to preach Christ.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3