PCA and Race: Reflective Review of "The Dangers of National Repentance"

An Essay by C.S. Lewis: The Dangers of National Repentance. [Found in God in the Dock]

C.S. Lewis did much of his best writing and reflection in the era during and after the Second World War. This essay ("The Dangers of National Repentance") was written in response to a drive to declare a national repentance and confession of sin in England for their part in guilt for the war.

A Summary of Lewis' thesis:

“They are ready to believe that England bears part of the guilt for the present war, and ready to admit their own share in the guilt of England.” 

But Lewis wonders: “What that share is, I do not find it easy to determine.” 

and goes on to ask: “Are they, perhaps repenting what they have in no sense done?”

A few more relevant lines:

“Men fail so often to repent their real sins that the occasional repentance of an imaginary sin might appear almost desireable.”

 But Lewis then goes on to illustrate the perils of doing so: "The young man who is called upon to repent of England's foreign policy is really being called upon to repent the acts of his neighbor.” 

 So that: “The first and fatal charm of national repentance is, therefore, the encouragement it gives us to turn from the bitter task of repenting our own sins to the congenial one of bewailing – but first of denouncing – the conduct of others.”

Lewis goes on to reflect that: “A group of such young penitents will say, 'Let us repent our national sins': what they mean is 'Let us attribute to our neighbor (even our Christian neighbor) in the Cabinet, whenever we disagree with him, every abominable motive that Satan can suggest to our fancy.”

This doesn't mean that Lewis rejects that there may be a need for national repentance, or that national repentance may need to be preached by the church ("It think it is" says Lewis).  Rather, Lewis goes on to say that national repentance may be necessary, but only with a discharge of “reluctance.” Just as one should not gain too much delight out of rebuking one's mother.

RELEVANCE:

To each of my readings, I hope to give some reflections to how this might be relevant to the current question before the PCA in regards to a denominational repentance. Though I would also recommend on this essay to read it for yourself, since the essay is short (5 pages). I think all PCA elders would gain something from reading it. My numbered reflections on Lewis' essay:

FIRST: Lewis in my opinion is right to warn of some of the self-righteous dangers of an endeavor of group repentance. Often this can be confessing the sins of one's neighbor, rather than your own sins. In those cases “we” really means “they.” Thus, there must be some reflection on the personal nature of such a confession. Is this the confession of a true acting collective whole, or the acting of one group or generation against another? Lewis warns of the violation of the Fifth Commandment if one is labeling something sin that is not, or just airing the sins of one's fathers unnecessarily. So two lessons from this point:

 1. One must be careful that in covenantal repentance, you are not confessing the sins of others, especially without their permission.

2. One must guard against passion for the sins of others, that distracts from one's confessing of your own sins.

SECOND: On the other hand, Lewis is also right to say there can be need of national repentance. Nothing in Lewis' essay, nor in the Scriptures, bars national repentance or what I would call "covenantal repentance" of a group body. If a group is constituted as a collective, and acts for the whole, then it commits acts for good or ill. Those acts should either be celebrated or repented of, respectively. Thus, there comes times when a group must repent of sinful acts and actions taken by the whole. The Lesson:

1. Covenantal repentance is valid, yet even when necessary must do so, it should have a tone of solemness and perhaps reluctance. We ought to honor our fathers, even if we must confess their and our iniquities as one body.

PCA and Race Part 3: Some of my particular Questions I am exploring...

Here are some my honest questions I am exploring:

1. What does it mean for a denomination to confess/repent? What is the nature and purpose of the repentance of an organization (or nation, or covenant community) as opposed to an individual?
2. What specific acts are in view for the General Assembly to confess and repent of (or directing congregations and individuals to repent of)? We are told to confess our particular sins, particularly, so what are the particular sins? (What History do I need to be familiar with to make that determination?)
3. What are the particular sins that my presbytery may need to repent of? What are the particular sins of my church? What does that look like?
4. Are we mostly looking at sins of omission? If so, what act was necessary and was not pursued?
5. In a confession of a sin in regards to the civil realm or ecclesial realm?
6. Can we confess this sin if the ones confessing are not the ones who sinned (at least in this particular way) and if those who are committing these sins presently are NOT repentant?
7. How can action by the upper court remedy local problems?
8. What does passing this resolution mean? What does this confession do? How is repentance different from confession?
9. What fruits of repentance must flow from such a confession?
10. What role does the RPCES tradition (which is as much a part of the history and ancestry of the PCA as the PCUS and continuing church movement) play in such a repentance?
11. If there are individuals and churches that were active in racial reconciliation and civil rights, does this need to be acknowledged (if it is necessary for their sin to be acknowledged, how about their good works)?
12. How does a theology of the covenant affect those who are in the same denomination?

The PCA and Race Part 2: Why I was confused...

Knowing now what the debate at the final session of the 43rd General Assembly of the PCA was about (confessing our denominations shortcomings in regards to the issue of race especially in regards to civil rights), here's why I was confused at the final session of General Assembly:

The unanimous decision of the committee seemed very wise to take time to do this right. I heard so many questions like: “What are we confessing, in particular?” and “Is this saying we are all a bunch of racists?” and “Is this just another piece of paper that makes us feel good but does nothing?” or “If two Southern ministers (Duncan and Lucas) can't call us to repentance, who can?”

You can see the range of those questions. A few wondered at any need for the resolution or action on this issue of race and the PCA (after all, the 30th General Assembly did something very similar to this). Many were cynical whether the resolution did anything but say words without actions, where there was a real need for the denomination to act. I actually met very few people that were satisfied with the resolution as is.

Such a range, in addition to what seemed like a majority of the AAPF (African American Presbyterian Fellowship) wanting to delay the resolution to perfect it until next year, should give us pause about interpreting the vote in one way or another, or imputing motives to either side. This was in fact something I heard on both sides, a suspicion at their vote.

Now, let me make my position known: I voted in the majority to refer the issue to the next assembly. I also did not sign the protest of that action (you can read a very positive account of it: here by TE Tim LeCroy), nor do I regret not signing it for I believe unless this is done right, every decade or so, it will be redone with similar results.

I'll also admit this, that I myself was cynical and suspected motives: I told a friend before the Assembly started that the resolution was toothless, and did more to placate consciences and white guilt about the past, than to actually address particular sins that exist in the denomination (and I believe particular sins do truly exist and are harmful to individuals and our witness, but none seemed to be particularly named by the resolution). So my original desire was actually to vote to accept the Resolution, merely to avoid the being misunderstood as being in the camp that thinks all is well on race issues, when really I believed the resolution was too weak and vague and broad. In other words, I went in too cynical, and expected everyone to be shamed into doing something fairly routine, that would happen again when we realized the words on paper didn't really do much.

With the Committee's recommendation, I was pleasantly surprised. I heard not a few members of the committee remark on their surprise and thankfulness at the unanimity that came out of the committee (which originally was divided) to so something right, rather than just do something right now.It sounded as if the committee actually listened to each other and wasn't suspecting motives. I was somewhat rebuked!

That's why I was confused on the floor, as it seemed some of my fears played out. When the unanimous recommendation came down, it was met by opposition and visible anger in at least one speaker, who had seen the division in the committee before the unanimity after talking to the AAPF. There was a cry to do it now, and that immediacy was more important than accuracy (as I heard at least one speaker make that case). As the issue was discussed, the old suspicion of motives seemed to reappear...even in myself of others.

Yet, during the discussion, I realized it was happening, and I also realized I shouldn't merely declare “I'm confused” or “I don't understand this” but own that. So here's my confession: I am confused and I don't understand all the issues involved, as before us is both present and past sins, the nature of group versus individual responsibility, and issues that predate my time in the denomination as well as my very existence. As I have struggled to understand the current issues, I perhaps need to revisit the history. I needed this year to do that, and to talk to the people I may have suspected of acting out of rashness or white guilt. That is suspecting motives, and I need to listen before I make those sorts of judgments.

As for me, this is my ambivalence (note: rightly understood, ambivalence is not apathy, but two opposing inclinations in the same person that live in tension.)

I was ordained in the PCA in 2011. I joined a PCA church in 2007. I was born in the North in 1981. The PCA was formally founded in 1973. There are many chronological reasons to say the the Civil Rights Movement that achieved its greatest victories in the 1960s is an issue of the past, and one for which I am not affected or culpable. But I don't know if that really is true. I live in the world the 1960s created, for good and ill. I am in a church that dates back to 1823. I am in the Presbyterian Tradition in America that dates back to the 1700s.

Also, while I may have never owned slaves nor denied someone access to a business based on their ethnicity (the sins of the previous generation), those sins shape the present. At the present, particular churches and individuals may have held prejudicial views, looked down on another ethnicity afflicted with the legacy of the sins of the previous generations, and even tolerated in our churches those who were members of a group whose purpose was to harm people of certain ethnicities. The sins of this generation are not necessarily the sins of our fathers, but are shaped by the sins of our fathers. While I am not guilty of sin merely for the color of my skin (white), I have perhaps learned sins, and tolerated sins in community.

I will post occasionally as I read the history, study the theology of covenantal repentance, and explore the issue in my own church and my own presbytery. These posts are for my own benefit (since I often think better when writing), but thought it may benefit others, especially other Teaching Elders in the PCA who may be starting a similar journey in response to the direction of the Assembly.

So I ask you, if you follow this, to be patient. When I ask questions, I don't have all the answers...so that's why I ask them. When I read, I am not inclined to agree with every author but to consider their perspective and ideas.

Here, I will share what I read, some thoughts in respect to conversations I have, and what I discover in my context concerning this issue.

NEXT: Some of my particular Questions I am exploring...

The PCA and Race Part 1: Confused in Chattanooga

“For the sake of the peace and purity of Christ's Church, and in preparation for the 44^th General Assembly, the Committee encourages sessions and presbyteries prayerfully to consider any and all sins of racial prejudice and to pursue a proper course of action humbly, sincerely and expeditiously. (Matthew 5:21-25; Ephesians 2:1-22, 4:1-32)” - Grounds of the Overture Committee of the 43^rd General Assembly for referring a Personal Resolution on Race to the 44^th General Assembly.

This is an introduction, which is partly in response to the expressed desires of the 43^rd General Assembly. I want to take some time over the next year to read, learn, talk, think and especially listen about an issue that was before the last session of the Assembly. So, first, a short introduction may be necessary about what that issue was about:

At the final session of the 43^rd Assembly there was a desperate effort to somehow reverse the unanimous recommendation (80 to 0) of the Committee, even by members of the Committee that originally filed a minority report, then withdrew it, then regretted withdrawing it. Originally the delay on the measure was passed unanimously after conferring with several members of the the AAPF (African American Presbyterian Fellowship) a new group in the PCA. However, some of that group did not agree and believed action was needed now.

Confused yet? You aren't alone. I would say confusion was my dominant state while listening to speaker after speaker passionately oppose what had been a unanimous decision regarding the overture. What was this overture that was submitted to this Assembly to consider?

Personal Resolution On Civil Rights Remembrance

Whereas, last year and this year mark significant anniversaries in the Civil Rights movement: 2014 was the sixtieth anniversary of the United States Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education and the fiftieth anniversary of the Civil Rights Act and Freedom Summer, and 2015 was the fiftieth anniversary of the Voting Rights Act and the Selma-to-Montgomery March; and

Whereas, many of our conservative Presbyterian churches at the time not only failed to support the Civil Rights movement, but actively worked against racial reconciliation in both church and society; and

Whereas, the 30^th General Assembly adopted a resolution on racial reconciliation that confessed its covenantal, generational, heinous sins connected with unbiblical forms of servitude, but failed to deal with the covenantal, generational, heinous sins committed during the much more recent Civil Rights era (cf. Daniel 9:4-11); and

Whereas, the 32^nd General Assembly adopted a pastoral letter on “the Gospel and Race” that was produced under the oversight of our Mission to North America committee, but that also failed to acknowledge the lack of solidarity with African Americans which many of our churches displayed during the Civil Rights era; and

Whereas, our denomination’s continued unwillingness to speak truthfully about our failure to seek justice and to love mercy during the Civil Rights era significantly hinders present-day efforts for reconciliation with our African American brothers and sisters; and    

Whereas, God has once more given our denomination a gracious providential opportunity to show the beauty, grace and power of the gospel of Jesus Christ by showing Christ-like love and compassion towards the greater African American community.

Be it therefore resolved, that the 43^rd General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America does recognize and confess our church’s covenantal and generational involvement in and complicity with racial injustice inside and outside of our churches during the Civil Rights period; and

Be it further resolved, that this General Assembly recommit ourselves to the task of truth and reconciliation with our African American brothers and sisters for the glory of God and the furtherance of the Gospel; and

Be it finally resolved, that the General Assembly urges the congregations of the Presbyterian Church in America to confess their own particular sins and failures as may be appropriate and to seek to further truth and reconciliation for the Gospel’s sake within their own local communities.

TE Sean Lucas
TE Ligon Duncan

How had the Overture Committee responded?

Due to the gravity and complexity of racial sin, and sympathetic with the need to pursue corporate and personal repentance over it, the Committee believes that:

• A perfected version of the resolution would effect particular denominational, regional, and local church repentance more particularly, and could include specific suggestions with regard to the nature of the fruit of such repentance (Matthew 3:8; II Corinthians 7:10; WCF5, 6);
• More time for Dr. Lucas’s research to be disseminated and studied by the church would also help effect a more particular and heartfelt repentance (cf. WCF1);
• Time for our African-American brothers to visit with the Overtures Committee in next year’s Assembly will further perfect the language and allow our repentance to be more heartfelt and accurate (cf. WCF 15.2)
• These matters of corporate repentance ought to come through lower courts of the church rather than by personal resolutions. [It is important to note that personal resolutions have special provisions in the RAO for people without access to the courts of the PCA or in case of emergency. (Cf. RAO 13–2; RAO 11–2: “Communications from individuals shall not be received by the General Assembly, unless they originate with persons who have no other access to the Assembly.”)]
  

For the sake of the peace and purity of Christ’s Church, and in preparation for the 44th General Assembly, the Committee encourages sessions and presbyteries to prayerfully consider any and all sins of racial prejudice and to pursue a proper course of action humbly, sincerely and expeditiously (Matthew 5:21–26; Ephesians 2:1–22; 4:1-32).

http://theaquilareport.com/pca-general-assembly-refers-personal-resolution-on-personal-resolution-on-civil-rights-remembrance-to-the/

Next: Why I am Confused...

Sermon text: Tale of Two Kings

The unfortunate thing about preaching a 10-12 minute sermon is that you cannot say everything you want to say but you still try. This was my third sermon with deficiencies that may have been able to be fixed with an extra 20 minutes in the sermon, as well as better organization. Oh well.

A TALE OF TWO KINGS
Daniel 5:26-31 and Jonah 3


Today, I would like to share with you a tale of two kings. The king of Nineveh, and Belshazzar, the King of Chaldeans. Before we get to our main text in Jonah 3, first let us look at how Daniel records the story Belshazzar, king of the Chaldeans. In Daniel 5, we have the son of Nebuchadnezzar who just in Daniel 4 confessed the greatness of the God of Israel, in contrast to Daniel 5, which records Belshazzar's drunken orgy party. In the middle of this party, handwriting appears on the wall. Daniel, the renowned interpreter of God's Word under Nebuchadnezzar was summoned in. Daniel's skill and delivery in other parts of Daniel is described as eloquent and dramatic. Daniel interpreted the words on the wall, as appears in the text in your bulletin. The basic interpretation was this: The days of your kingdom are numbered, you have been weighed and found wanting, your kingdom will surely fall to the Medes and Persians. In response, what did Belshazzar do? He honored the messenger, placed a robe of royalty on Daniel and gave him a high office like his ancestor Nebuchadnezzar did. Then, Dan 5:30, “that very night, Belshazzar the Chaldean King was killed.”

A strange ending to the story, isn't it? Belshazzar certainly honored the messenger. What went wrong?

Let us turn to the second tale, our main text is from the minor prophet Jonah from Israel, in the city of Nineveh, the capital of Assyria. Jonah delivers nearly the same message as Daniel in Jonah 3:4, “Forty days and Nineveh will be overthrown.” Your days are numbered, you have been found wanting, your kingdom will fall. But notice this response. When the king heard of this, he gave no praise to the messenger, nor did he give Jonah high appointment. Bum deal for Jonah. Instead, the king of Nineveh responded to the message with sackcloth and ashes. This image of sackcloth and ashes is meant to demonstrate repentance. Repentance literally is “turning” from one thing to another thing. A changing of mind, will, and heart. Here, it says it is turning from evil ways towards God. The king himself repented, and tells us why in 3:9:

Jon 3:9 “Who knows? God may turn and relent and turn from his fierce anger, so that we may not perish."
Jon 3:10 When God saw what they did, how they turned [or repented] from their evil way, God relented of the disaster that he had said he would do to them, and he did not do it.

The same message came against both kings. A word of judgment, revealing and spotlighting one's sin, along with God's wrath against it. Yet, God gave judgment to one, but to the other one, He gave mercy. Do you see the difference? Both kings responded after the message was delivered. Belshazzar gave honor and titles and praise to the messenger. But the king of Nineveh responded to the message. No titles or honors were given to Jonah. The King of Nineveh repented to receive mercy.

What of Belshazzar's response? He may have thought it was a good response. Kierkegaard, a theologian who lived in the beginnings of our modern era, had a favorite parable he would tell to explain the emerging modern age. The story went: There was a new show about to open in a theater known for its originality and novelty. But just as the show was about to begin, the main actor saw the theater was on fire. He ran out on stage to warn the audience, shouting: “The theater is on fire, run!” The audience, thinking it was part of the show merely clapped at the masterful performance by the actor. Some said it was the best performance they had ever seen. So the actor shouted louder, “I tell you the truth, you will all die if you stay here, it's on fire!” the audience merely clapped and cheered louder, more impressed by the performance. So, Kierkegaard said, will the world go out: to the sound of applause.

This prompts us to ask: what is our response to the Word when it comes and uncovers our sin? It is an important question if you are a member of this church, because in the past few months, you could not have escaped the message and theme of judgment. Often, in the course of this series on the minor prophets, we havecome across this message of judgment. Also, we have seen this in our Sunday sermons on Joshua, where we have met a word of judgment in the book of Joshua that was not retracted against Jericho. How do we react to a declaration of our sin, and God's wrath against it?

In an orthodox church, it is easy to react with a kind of thankfulness in this way: “I'm glad our preacher does not shrink from preaching the truth like other preachers.” We can compliment how skillful or bold the delivery was. We, with our words, can applaud the messenger while ignoring the message.

Now, there is not necessarily anything wrong with thanking God for a faithful preacher or encouraging a preacher, though I suspect for pointing it out, few will approach me after this message. But, what is the proper response to the message of judgment? Repentance. The king of Nineveh repented, and he received mercy. So also, when our sin is brought before us and God’s displeasure against it, we should not merely praise the messenger, we should repent to obtain mercy.

In the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 12, Jesus references our text in Jonah against the Pharisees. He saw their lack of attentiveness to his message, and said “the men of Nineveh will rise up and judge you!” What is Jesus talking about?

If the king of Nineveh repented at Jonah's message, how much more ought we to respond to Christ's message?

If you read the rest of Jonah, you will note that Jonah was a less compelling prophet (he hated the people he preached to, he did no want them to repent!), with no announcement of his coming (he was an outsider to them) and his message was light on details (“forty days and Nineveh will be overthrown!”....that was it.) there was no promise of deliverance. Did you note how the king of Nineveh said, in verse 9, “Who knows, perhaps God may spare us”?

Contrast that to Jesus, Who comes as a compelling prophet, (loving His covenant people), with announcement of his coming (from the prophets, from John the Baptist, and coming within the community as a Jew), with much more detail attaching a promise of deliverance for repentance. Something the king of Nineveh didn't have. The king made no demands based on God owing mercy, even when he repented.

You see: God owes us nothing for our response. We see with Belshazzar, God owed him nothing for sitting under a skillful messenger of the word. Nor did God owe him anything for praising and honoring the messenger of the word. God even owed the king of Nineveh nothing for his repentance.

God owes us nothing.

The King of Nineveh repented on the mere possibility of mercy. It was God's discretion on whether to grant mercy, out of shear grace, not obligation, for He made no promises to him.

How much more ought the people of God come to God in repentance? We repent with the promise of mercy. After we come to the confession of sin in our worship, we will hear the words of assurance, “If we confess our sin, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins.” Faithful to what? To His promise to you.

God owes you no mercy, YET God has given you His Word in covenant. The king of Ninevah had no such covenant with God. God condescends to bind Himself to His promise to you. The promise of Christ's message is as the apostles presented it:

Acts 3:19 Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out,

(The message: Repent with the promise of obtaining mercy)

It is a message for believers and non-believers alike. To unbelievers, repenting, or turning, is from former idols, the counterfeit gods of sin we have served rather than God in Christ. It is pleading Christ, rather than our former gods, our selves, our sins. It is a repentance of a changing of the mind about Christ.

Know today, if you have never responded the message of Christ, the same promise is extended to you. God has a word of his displeasure with sin, of that evil which as perfectly holy, He can having nothing to do with. But, if you turn from your former self-confidence, to Christ, pleading His work rather than your own, Christ's Holiness rather than your own, you may be certain of God's forgiveness on the basis of faith. He confirms that work and promise first in your baptism, his visible promise to you of mercy, and then will confirm it repeatedly in the Supper.

Yet, it is also a message to believers, having already been pardoned in faith, that faith is a repentant faith that continues to turn from the sin that remains with us in heart and will, and the death and fleeting pleasure they provide in our lives to the true life and true joy in Christ. In repentance, God renovates our affections, turning our hearts from the things we formerly loved more and more to Christ and the works He has prepared for us. If we repent, God is faithful, to His Word of promise, to give us more of Himself in Christ, the greatest gift of mercy and grace. We no longer have to say, “Who knows? Perhaps God will give mercy” like the king of Nineveh. God has bound Himself to His word. He will give mercy to the repentant covenant member.

And if you are a believer, as 1 John reminds us, though pardoned through faith, sin remains throughout life, so then also remains the repentance of the Christian. The whole Christian Life is one of repentance, turning from sin towards God, through a growth of affection for God rather than sin. Repentance is not a one time thing, nor is it something we perfectly achieve in this life. Instead it is the duty of all of life.

Perhaps our hearts sink under that news, that we are perpetually in need of repentance, that we constantly are to hear the message “repent” in all of life. Repentance has a decidedly dower, “unfun” sound to it. Yet it shouldn't. Repentance is literally turning, from the ugliness of evil and destruction to the Beauty and Joy of God in Christ. What is that sin that you seem to love more than Christ? Look on Christ and His message, which is more beautiful to you? The small, momentary pleasure of your sin, or the pleasures He brings, that the 16th Psalm says is “pleasures evermore.” As C.S. Lewis put it, God tells us we are too easily satisfied. We play with mud pies in a puddle, while God has offered us a day at the beach. Repentance is a grand gift, as God exchanges our lesser things, for Himself, the greatest good.

[Invitation to the Table]

Repentance in the New Testament is presented as something that God “grants,” as a good and joyful gift that He enables. That is why our worship involves a rehearsal for a feast. We could be satisfied in smallness of gluttony and drunkenness like Belshazzar. Or we can turn to Christ's feast of true lasting bread and wine. Psalm 104:15 tells reads that God “gave bread to strengthen or sustain the heart of man, and wine to cheer up or gladden the heart of man.” These are the elements Christ used to picture Himself as offered to the believer, as that which we turn to: our sustenance and our joy and gladness. We turn from the bitterness of sin to the sweetness of Christ in the Gospel. We turn from the food that will not ultimately fill us, to the living bread, from abusing wine in drunkenness to the intoxicating wine of Christ's Gospel.

Repent! That you may obtain mercy. Turn from your sin in confession towards the One who gives mercy, and grace and joy. He has bound Himself to His Word. He will do it. Happy is the believer, to Whom repentance is granted, and deliverance is provided. Happy is the believer who feeds, not merely on the passing things of this world, but on Christ in their heart. Amen.

Thinking through Motivation in Sanctification

What is our motivation to change?

Definition/Clarification of terms.

What is “Changing” or spiritual progress?: Not mere behavior modification, but modification based on changed affections. As Owen defines it: “cleaving unto God in all powers and affections of our minds.” (John Owen. Duty and Grace of Spiritual Mindedness, 382)

Practical consideration: How is a Christian given hope in the midst of unending struggle? What motives and encouragement exist for the Christian?

Pastorally, how do we respond to:
1)The Christian who wants to change but faces difficulty.
2)The professed Christian who does not want to change.

Possible Answers considered

Does one persevere in growth...

A) For Salvation? (-some Arminians, Roman Catholics)

One cannot be told that a Christian can have a salvation that is taken away due to their works. “Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?” (Gal 3:3) Although sanctification is necessary in salvation (Rom 6:22), it is not by works (Acts 26:18), just as salvation and justification can in no way be merited by Christians (Rom 3:20, 4:2-6; Titus 3:5-7; WCF 16.5)

(John 10:28, Romans 8:29, 8:35-39, Phil 1:6. Westminster Confession Ch 17.)

B) For Assurance? (-many Puritans)

Although salvation cannot be taken away, profession is not equivalent to possession.

1Jn 2:3-5 And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says "I know him" but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him. (See also 2 Peter 1:5-10)

If we not only do not keep his commandments (as we will only do partially, and imperfectly) but also have no desire to keep his commandments, to love the law of God as a revelation of God's nature, then we cannot know that we are His. Yet, although this is a better answer than A, this is a standard of measurement, and not a proper motivation. Assurance as motivation can bring questions of the means of salvation, rather than the presence of love as evidential of salvation. Assurance then is an effect, a benefit of spiritual growth, not a singular motivation.

There is a difference between effect/evidence and motivation. Although “assurance” is a better answer than “salvation,” assurance is a benefit rather than a motivation for changing. Assurance as a motivation can bring questions about the means of salvation.

C) For Reward? (-many Free Gracers, pop Christian psychologists)

This could be an improper motivation. “Reward” is a vague term and could be false if it views spiritual growth as merely following the law, viewing the law as a merit-reward system. Although “reward” is a word and concept used in Scripture, it is not placed as a motivation apart from the Giver and is usually by means of gracious covenant (merited by Christ). Temporal and eternal blessing is function of the gospel, not the law. (Gal 3:10-13) Also, if the gift/reward is removed, what motivation does the believer have left? This would reveal a service to “the creation rather than the Creator.) (Romans 1:25) Therefore motivation should not be set upon a rewards-system (cf. Gal 3:11; Heb 11:13-16, 26)...unless we mean...


D) For God in Christ as our reward.

“there is, though not an absolute perfection, yet a blessed degree of heavenly mindedness to be attained, and therein the nearest approach unto glory that in this world we are capable of” (John Owen. Grace and Duty of Being Spiritually Minded. 382) [Col 3:2-5]

By heavenly mindedness, Owen is not meaning mere reward but Reward, using Colossians 3, which directs us to “seek the things that are above, where Christ is.” Heavenly mindedness is Christ-mindedness, a reflection on God in Christ as the delight and reward of man, (Gen 15:1 KJV; Ps 33:1; modeled in Heb 12:2, John 6:47-65) that makes the law of God a delight (Ps 1; Rom 7:22), seeing God's will (1 Thess 4:3) as our greatest good. The chief end or purpose of man is stated as being glorifying and “enjoying” God (West. Catechism Q1). This too is not perfected but begun in this life. (Ph 4:4, Psa 16:5-11)

In this way, the motivation is a reward, drawn by love. The “why?” is answered in revealing Christ to the believer. Sanctifying grace, too, is irresistible to the degree that Christ is seen and draws the believer. Our ultimate answer to why we persevere in spiritual progress is: because we love Him. (2 Cor 5:14; Eph 3:17-19; 1 Thes 1:3; 2 Thes 3:5, etc.) So not by the Law (Gal 3:10-13, “The law was never ordained of God to convey grace or spiritual strength unto souls of men.” Owen Dominion), nor our wills in will-worship (Col 2:20-23), but by apprehending and experiencing Christ.

Illustration

Here, the answers may be compared to a marriage. Does one do acts of love for a wife because A) she will leave you if you don't B) you are assured of her love for you C) she returns the favor or D) because you love her. All may be motiations at one time or another, but all are subservient to D.

Implications:

The job of the pastor in counseling motivation towards spiritual progress, which ought to be understood as a change in affections (“cleaving unto God in all powers and affections of our minds.” as Owen describes it), the goal is a revealing of Christ in His Person, Work and Beauty that we may love Him, as motivation, sustenance, growth in affections and power unto spiritual growth.

We are to see Christ Who is the supremely beautiful, living, Good, joyful, glorious, and the summum bonum, and our motivation, in our best moments. If we truly are regenerate, we cannot help but change and make progress moving towards the object of our worship, adoration and love in so far as He is thought of and seen by the believer, even though He is clouded by our lack of perfect sight. We become like what we love and worship. Why do we spiritually grow in love for others? Because He first loved us in Christ. Why are we faithful, and not adulterous? Because God is faithful to us in Christ. Why are we truthful, for God is truthful to us in His promises.

To encourage, the aim of a pastor would not be to send them to their bare works, but to the object of their heart. A regenerate heart cannot remain completely cold to the Savior placed before them. The challenge is to place the Savior before the believer and cultivate a desire created by the vision and experience of Christ.


Appendix Implications:

How Christ is seen: Christ must be seen to compel progress in the Spiritual life. Christ is seen in the Scriptures (Luke 24, John 6) in the Supper (1 Cor 10:16; 11:24-26), in Preaching (1 Cor 1:21, Romans 10:14-15) and in prayer and meditation. (Ps. 69:13; Luke 6:12)

So not by the Law (Gal 3:10-13, “The law was never ordained of God to convey grace or spiritual strength unto souls of men.” Owen Dominion), nor our wills in will-worship (Col 2:20-23), but by apprehending and experiencing Christ through the Means of Grace as the means of grace take on significance as a place to receive Christ, not a mechanical method.

Effects/Benefits of spiritual growth: Although the true motivation is love, the effects are multiple such as believers manifesting their thankfulness (Ps 116:12, Ps 116:13; 1Pet 2:9), strengthening their assurance (2 Pet 1:5-10; 1Jo 2:3, 1Jo 2:5), building up the church (Mat 5:16; 2 Cor 9:2), proving wrong the enemies of the church (1Pe 2:15), and glorifying God (Joh 15:8; Phi 1:11; 1Pet 2:12). (cf. WCF 16.2)