Category: Past Blogs

By Tim Cantrell
December 2023

‘Pastor, can we sing this new Christmas song, “O Come All You Unfaithful” (see lyrics)?’  Answering this question lately has proved to be a good pastoral and theological exercise for some of our leaders and music team, and perhaps could be for yours too.  This popular new carol is not heretical; I’ve tolerated hearing it sung elsewhere (and I deeply appreciate the music ministry of Sovereign Grace).

However, I find this song theologically weak and too reminiscent of the spirit of this age. As a pastor, I’m called to guard what doctrines are taught to the souls entrusted to my care, and that includes discerning which songs are best and most Christ-exalting and edifying to our flock (2 Tim. 1:13-14; 3:16-16; Tit. 1:9; Php. 1:10). Each church must decide for itself; but by way of testimony, here’s three reasons our church won’t be singing, ‘O Come All You Unfaithful’:

1.      It Undermines Positional Sanctification– The writer (Lisa Clow) misunderstands and misrepresents the original carol, “O Come All Ye Faithful”, by confusing positional and progressive sanctification.  Clow wrongly suggests that the classic hymn was written only for perfect/sinless believers, not for struggling ones (see her song’s back story, after a very hard year and some “deep relational bitterness”).

It is biblical to call all Christians “faithful” (Eph. 1:1; 1 Tim. 1:12) and “triumphant” (Rev. 2-3), regardless of feelings. Our fixed, permanent position in Christ is the very ground and motivation for living the Christian life: “Consider/reckon yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus”; ‘Become what you already are in Christ, practice your new position’, this is the heart of biblical sanctification (Rom. 6; Eph. 4; Col. 3).

Our unchanging identity in Christ is a source of great joy and comfort to the believer, no matter what our circumstances or emotions.  It is unfair to suggest that Christians are hypocrites if ever they sing a joyous Christmas carol amidst deep suffering or fierce struggles against sin.

2.      It Disregards a Treasured Song – “O Come All Ye Faithful” is one of my all-time favourite carols, which our congregation loves to sing wholeheartedly.  It is one of the most biblically rich, Christologically profound, soul-nourishing of all the Christmas carols (see original lyrics).  It is part of our Christian heritage to be received gratefully and preserved, not discarded. Why would we want to distance ourselves from the historic and global Church that has sung this great carol in many languages for centuries?

In our anti-historical age that destroys monuments, redefines marriage and gender, and deconstructs everything, Christians are a people who “remember” and appreciate the shoulders we stand upon. Rather than ripping off classic hymns, let today’s songwriters craft their own original songs to edify the Church (as we know Clow and others are doing with many good songs).

Instead of proclaiming biblical, objective truths, Clow’s carol focuses on self and on subjective, personal emotions that reflect our therapeutic age.  Far better to anchor our faith in lyrics grounded on the massive, ancient bedrock of biblical truth.

3.      It Minimises Repentance – Clow tells how she wrote the song out of “deep bitterness”, and her lyrics speak also of the sin of fear and the resulting guilt; yet there is no mention of repentance in the song or its story.  Instead, it sounds more like commiseration with others who are failing, “know you are not alone”.  Antinomianism is already ravaging the Church again today.  We don’t need more songs that minimise sin or cheapen grace.  Our age exalts the emotions of being ‘real and raw’ over the biblical virtues of faith and obedience.

Where in Scripture is our fundamental Christian identity called “unfaithful”, “unstable”, “bitter”, or “guilty and hiding ones”? No doubt we are still sinners (Jam. 3:2; 1 Tim. 1:15; 1 Pet. 2:11; Gal. 5:16-26), tempted and stumbling in many ways, and sometimes weak and failing; but we are ashamed and repent of that, we don’t normalise it (Psalms 32 & 51; 1 Jn. 1:6-10; Rev. 2-3). Has Clow inadvertently turned a Christ-centred call to worship into group therapy for us to wallow together in our misery and failure?  Have we turned the deep joy of advent into a shallow lament?

No doubt the Psalms gives us many examples of how to bring the whole range of human emotions honestly and humbly before our Lord in worship (even in our weakest and worst of situations) – and I’m sure that is what Clow’s song is attempting to do. But by framing her song as fixing a traditional Christmas carol, it seems misleading to me.

It is a biblical mandate to “sing to one another” and to “rejoice always”; these are Christian duties (Col. 3:16; Eph. 5:19; 1 Thess. 5:16; Php. 4:4), regardless of how we feel. When we disobey this command, we can repent, be forgiven and receive God’s grace to sing even louder next time to encourage our brothers and sisters in the faith – to point them away from self and upward to Christ. “O come let us adore Him!”

____________________________________________________________________________________________

NOTE: After writing the above was I notified of Bob Kauflin’s response last year to apparently the same concerns I’m raising that others have raised (and showing indeed how popular this new song has become): https://worshipmatters.com/2022/12/22/what-o-come-all-you-unfaithful-doesnt-mean/ (Bob is a dear brother and a proven, faithful servant of Christ & His Church – so this is very much a little in-house, family debate among friends.)

By Martin Sitefane
Shepherds’ Seminary Graduate
Johannesburg
November 2023

 

The Bible defines what constitutes a church, a biblical ekklesia. Every gathering that classifies itself as a “church” must be tested against the grid of Scripture to determine whether it is truly what it puts itself out to be. This is a key question because of the identity, the role and the power that Scripture ascribes to the church. The church’s significance spans not only in this lifetime, but carries eternal consequences for those who attend it and are part of it.

Grace Bible Church is one of the biggest churches in Soweto, reportedly with over than 70 branches in various provinces in South Africa. As someone who grew up in a township, and is serving there currently, testing the biblical veracity of this large, influential “church” is an important issue given their prevalence in Soweto, and the influence in the broader South African township context.

In this paper, I briefly exegete three select texts from which I derive three marks of a truly biblical Ekklesia. Following which I use the three marks to as fairly as possible critically evaluate Grace Bible Church.

 Admittedly, an article of a mere 6 pages cannot do full justice to this topic. Only a PhD thesis involving some field work (interview of members etc.), listening to tons of sermons, and evaluating all the New Testament (NT) marks of a church would do full justice. However, I believe the selected three marks carry sufficient weight from which I can arrive at a non- biased, biblical, and conclusive judgement of Grace Bible church’s standing against God’s blueprint. To this end then the paper will first provide a high-level exegesis of three NT passages about the marks of the church. This will be followed by an evaluation of Grace Bible Church against these marks. I close off with a brief conclusion that summarises my position based on the data analysed.

BACKGROUND AND THE FOUNDER OF GRACE BIBLE CHURCH

 Grace Bible Church was founded by Senior Pastor, Musa Sono (known to many as Bishop “Musa Sono”). Sono is considered by many as being influential and missional. As such, he presently serves as president, board member, and executive in more than five church organisations. The organisations include the Federation of Charismatic and Pentecostal churches (IFCC), the South African Council of Churches National Council of the Leaders forum, and Soweto Ministries Fraternal. He is considered missional for famously declaring that he aims to establish 1000 church branches in his lifetime.

From a distance, Grace Bible Church looks rather impressive. Grace Bible Church has a relatively established history. It was constituted in in the 1980’s, meaning that its doors have been open for just over 40 years.   Over this 40-year span, it has opened over 70 branches, in four provinces in South Africa, namely Gauteng, Western Cape, Limpopo, and Free State. It is well-known for its outreach ministries which serve various poor communities with food, clothing etc.

If one considers Grace Bible’s church credentials from a distance, one might be tempted to conclude that Grace Bible Church is an excellent example of successful church planting in the townships. However, since God’s definition of successful church planting and ministering in any setting for that matter is not purely gauged by impressive external statistics, it is critical that one evaluates Grace Bible church soberly, using scripture as the grid for truly assessing its ways. Using the Word of God sets all personal opinions and preferences aside, and instead elevates God’s standard as preeminent.

The grid of Scripture must determine the nature of Grace Bible Church as whether it is indeed a blueprint of township ministry, or whether it is one of the many false, unbiblical churches that are wreaking havoc all over our nation.

MARKS OF A BIBLICAL CHURCH ACCORDING TO THE WORD OF GOD

 The New Testament has a plethora of texts that provide insight on the question, “What constitutes a biblical Ekklesia?” Instead of tackling them all, I’ll focus on three: 2 Tim. 4:1-2, Matt. 18:15-20, and 1 Tim. 3:1-13. From these I’ve derived three marks of a biblical Ekklesia.

(1) The first mark is found in Paul’s famous letter to his beloved son in the faith and Minister at the Ephesian church, Timothy. 2 Tim. 4:1-2 reads, “I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.”

In these mere two verses we learn much about what should take place in a local church. First, Timothy is called to preach. Preaching is the act. Second, Paul not only defines the act, but also lays out the content that must be preached. Paul says Timothy, preach not your opinion, or stories that tickle itching ears. No! Preach “the word”. Paul then goes further to show that preaching the word should not be driven by culture or convenience. We see this at end of 2 Tim. 4:1-2 when Paul says, “be ready in season and out of season”. Timothy as a preacher at the church of Ephesus was to preach the word whether in season (that’s favourable times), and out of season (that’s unfavourable times). Unlike the grace-filled, ‘You have great potential’, non-offensive preachings of many preachers, Timothy’s spectrum of messages was to involve the whole spectrum of “reprove, rebuke, and exhortation”; with “complete patience and teaching”.

If these were Paul’s words to Timothy in what was probably his last words in 2 Timothy, then surely, he (and indeed his master Christ) expects the same from any church today? Faithfulness to the mandate of preaching the word, in season and out of season, is a distinguishing mark of true biblical ekklesia.

(2) A second mark of a biblical church is derived from Jesus’s own words in Matthew 18:15-20. In this passage, Jesus described a crucial process of how a local body should lovingly deal with sin in its midst. The ideal situation is if the transgressor acknowledges their sin and repents, thus terminating the church discipline process in step 1. However, in the unfortunate event of the transgressor’s refusal to repent, even after being confronted by the church, the church is left with no other option but to excommunicate the member. The hope is still that now that they’ve been pronounced as an unbeliever, they’ll eventually repent and be restored to the assembly. Church discipline then can be rightly described as an exercise of uncomfortable Christ-honouring love. It is uncomfortable because the process involves a confronting sin. It is Christ-honouring love because in obedience to Christ, its chief aim is restoration and maintaining the purity of the body.

Some churches, thinking they know better than the Master, refuse to practice church discipline. Contrary to Christ, they consider it unloving, harsh, and merciless. The reality though is that since church discipline was Christ’s and not man’s idea. Any church that fails to exercise church discipline in the so-called name of grace and love, is disobeying the word of God. To disobey God’s word is to reject Christ’s authority over the church. Faithful churches have always been obedient churches, especially in crucial issues.

(3) A third and final mark of a biblical church is taken from 1 Tim. 3:1-13. In this passage the apostle Paul gives a long list of essential characteristics of the two office bearers of the church, the elder and the Paul makes it clear in verse fifteen of chapter three that these are not mere recommendations or some good to have characteristics. These characteristics are none negotiables for every church. Any truly biblical church should be exemplified by a commitment to appoint leaders who meet the characteristics set out in this passage. Failure to do so is unfaithful, unbiblical and is not a true mark of a biblical church.

In summary, from the passages surveyed we have established three marks of a biblical church. Admittedly these are not all the marks, others could be added, for example those in Mark Dever book, Nine Marks of a Healthy Church – marks such as a biblical understanding of conversion, good news, church membership, evangelism amongst others. However, these three mark are weighty enough as biblical essentials in the assessment of whether Grace Bible Church is a biblical church. To summarise, the three marks are:

– A biblical church is marked by faithful preaching of the Word
– A biblical church is marked by faithful practicing of church discipline
– A biblical church is marked by faithful placement of church officers

IN LIGHT OF THE SCRIPTURES, IS GRACE BIBLE CHURCH A BIBLICAL EKKLESIA?

 Having established the three marks of a biblical church, the question that remains to be answered is how does Grace Bible Church match up to these marks? Grace Bible church will be evaluated against each mark below.

(1) Mark 1, a biblical church faithfully proclaims God’s word: Admittedly, no church is perfect – only heaven will reveal how we might have erred on tertiary, and even some secondary convictions that we held on strongly. Nevertheless, the true test of faithfulness to scripture is whether churches are especially faithful in upholding the clear, non-ambiguous, non- negotiable, primary, and orthodox doctrines of the Grace Bible church is evaluated using this category. Their statement of faith is a good starting place.

With the exception of the obvious endorsement of the charismatic gifts, Grace Bible church statement of faith is pretty orthodox. Some statements are undoubtedly a little uncomfortable e.g., when they say “we strive to be relevant to our generation”, but even these are balanced out by the next phrase “whilst remaining scripturally pure”. At face value none of their doctrinal affirmations are heretical and I’d be at ease to adopt a large percentage of these in any church.

But as is often the case, the statement of faith is a dusty, forgotten or neglected piece of paper. The true statement of faith is observed in practice. When one interrogates the preaching, as I have done, a completely different picture emerges. I’ll use three different excepts from recent sermons at the church’s headquarters to demonstrate the underlying theology and teachings of the church:

Example 1

– Last month, on Sunday 15 October (2023) in a sermon on three main texts 1 17:33-36, Songs of Solomon 3:6, and Numb. 13:27 the speaker by the name of Bishop Bernard Nwaka, amongst other bizarre statements, said the following: “God has called you to silence every voice that has told you that you cannot do it. Nations are awaiting you”.

Example 2

– Another example from last month (8 October 2023) another pastor, known as Dr. Elijah Maswanganyi, preached a sermon titled, “The Hindrances that Challenge us from Beholding New Things”. He listed seven obstacles. The list of hindrances included historical factors such as apartheid and slavery; fear of change; denominational factors which he said are a form of racism and tribalism; and perhaps most shocking, he said ‘Hermeneutical Bible Interpretation’. In other words, following the old age application of what protestant consider as sound Hermeneutical Bible interpretation is a hindrance that challenges Christians to behold new things. Given their openness to new revelation, it makes sense why an orthodox application of hermeneutics would be seen as a hindrance for beholding new things. No wonder why then their preaching embraces eisegesis not exegesis.

Example 3

– A third example is from a visiting preacher, Don Philips, who was preaching recently from Ezekiel 37:1-4. This is what he concluded from the text. I quote, “God is taking us through a dry valley and he is asking us “will these bones live?”. We need to speak to the dead dry bones in our nation. Let us declare to the dry bones in this nation; hear the word of God. South Africa will emerge as a mighty army, this is our season and time to arise. The season for the church is here”.

– How bold? How self-assured? How awfully unbiblical? This is the weekly diet of members at Grace Bible church and no-one can dare challenge this because as one of the speakers by the name of Reverent Thandanani Savhasa said at a recent event, “We need to understand that utterances that are said during this week don’t come from Bishop Sono or any of the speakers, but from the oracles of the Lord. The great I AM Who remains faithful”. That is an unashamed claim of divine revelation emanating from Sono and others leaders.

From these excerpts and other sermon notes that I evaluated, my summation of Grace Bible church’s preaching is that their preaching is man-centred, unfaithful to the text, flawed with positive confession, often vague and confusing, a perfect example of eisegesis, equivalent to motivational speaking and the teaching does not centre on Christ and him crucified for depraved sinners. This is a far cry from Paul’s commission to Timothy to, “preach the word rebuke, reproof, and exhort with all patience”. In all earnestness, the sermons sound more like those emanating from the false puffed-up teachers of Jude, than the faithful lovingly confrontational preachings of Paul, Peter, and James.

(2) Mark 2 deals with church discipline. My summation is that a truly biblical church is committed to the faithful practice of church discipline. Here, I rely on secondary information from former members of Grace Bible church. According to these sources church discipline is not practiced, let alone known to exist in the church. Sources report of how sin among the youth, and even the highly esteemed leaders is often brushed aside with no formal disciplinary steps taken. In fact, from at least one couple and a former youth leader in the church, one of the abhorrent things that finally pushed them away from the church was just how loose the church’s grip was on dealing with sin. They report how Youth leaders would often be engaged in drunkenness and fornication the one weekend, and then continue to lead, so-called ushering people to God’s presence in song and bible teaching the next Sunday.

It is no-wonder why many unbelievers whose lives are no different to the non-churchgoers feel absolutely comfortable in the church. It is no wonder why someone as scandalous as South Africa’s Deputy President Paul Mashatile feels at home in the church, and was even classified as one of the VIPs at a recent church event.

(3) The final mark explored is that a truly biblical church protects the office of elder and deacons by only appointing qualified candidates, and sharply dealing with disqualified office. Here I find two faults with Grace Bible church. First, the NT makes allowance for only men to serve as elders. This is clearly taught in 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1.

Grace Bible church clearly and quite proudly violates this clear NT teaching by having various women serving as elders throughout their branches. In fact, Mosa Sono’s wife, Gene Sono, is herself a Pastor of the main Grace Bible church branch in Pimville. She bears several elder titles such as ‘Ma Bishop’, ‘Pastor Sono’, ‘Overseer’ which the church unashamedly highlights on the church’s website. This is not the only issue in terms of protecting the office of an elder.

Another issue, again highlighted by former members is that the appointment of elders and deacons is not always according to the clear criteria set out in the 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1. According to former member, there have been many instances where elders are selected based on their giving ability, influence, giftedness, celebrity profile, charisma, and popularity. Some disqualified men are still today serving as elders even though they have been divorced several times or have displayed a love of money, or have failed in managing their household.

CONCLUSION

 This brief paper has sought to biblically evaluate Grace Bible church credential as a true Ekklesia. I have done so by looking at three NT marks of a truly biblical church. Having evaluated the marks, namely, that a biblical church is faithful to the word, faithful to church discipline, and faithful to upholding church discipline, I conclude that based on these criteria, Grace Bible church is not a biblical Ekklesia. As such, I will endeavour where appropriate to warn in my preaching and in personal communication to warn people of its ills. I pray that many people will take heed, and avoid the poison of churches that in their efforts of being relevant to this generation forsake preaching the word, fail to apply church discipline, and appoint elders and deacons based on man and not God’s standard.

 

SOURCES:
https://gracebiblechurch.org.za/
Nine Marks of a Healthy Church, by Mark Dever
Personal communication with former members of Grace Bible Church, Soweto

By the Faculty of Shepherds’ Seminary
16 November 2023
Johannesburg, South Africa

 

Given both the perennial conflict in the Middle East, and the church’s relationship to biblical Israel, we believe the following statement is urgently needed for theological clarity, correct moral judgment, and Christian discernment of current affairs so that the body of Christ is unified in the truth and in gospel witness before a watching world.[1] We would appeal to all evangelical believers to stand with us around convictions 1-10 in light of biblical ethics, human rights and the facts of history. In addition, we offer affirmations 11-13 for those who share our dispensational theology.

1. The modern state of Israel was created by victorious powers in a just war, and has every right to exist and to survive. As a sovereign nation, it has the right for self-determination and self-protection.[2] The creation of the modern state was lawful, and since it is a lawful state, it has every right to make its own laws, defend itself, make treaties and alliances, and do what is necessary to ensure the protection of its citizens. According to Just War theory, this includes waging wars, whether defensive or pre-emptive, to protect its citizens.[3] The Golden Rule also applies at a national level, treating other nations “as we want to be treated” (Matt. 7:12).

2. The modern state of Israel, as a legitimate government, is appointed to promote justice and protect life (Rom. 13:1-6; 1 Pet. 2:13-14). To the degree it supports the human freedoms of religion, private property, lawful assembly, free speech, it represents the common grace of God, and is a bulwark against the anarchical forces of sin, tyranny, and evil (Ps. 145:9; Matt. 5:44-45; Acts 14:17; 17:28).

3. The modern state of Israel is like every other nation ruled and populated by sinners: it is not faultless. Not every choice or policy by modern Israel deserves to be defended. Every nation commits evil deeds, and no earthly political body deserves a Christian’s unqualified, uncritical support (Matt. 28:18; Jn. 18:36; Eph. 1:21).

4. Modern Israel is not identical to biblical Israel, yet there is overlap. Israel is the legitimate homeland for many millions of Jews, and Christians should be wary of anti-Zionist sentiment. Much of this is old-fashioned antisemitism, smuggled in under the guise of a political battle for land. Many anti-Zionist groups are not in pursuit of justice for Palestinians; they are in pursuit of the destruction of Israel and the eradication of the Jewish people (Ps. 83).

5. We are not required, in the name of impartiality, to assert some superficial symmetry of sympathy between Israel and other nations (a kind of ‘both-side-ism’, the myth of moral equivalence). Israel stands as a rare example of democracy in a region dominated by authoritarian regimes. If Israel’s neighbours or enemies assert that their aim is the eradication of Israel, the murder of Jews, or the destruction of the modern state of Israel, this does not deserve Christian sympathy, toleration or defence.[4] Christians should always condemn murder, tyranny and oppression, whatever the political motivation (Exod. 20:13; Prov. 8:13; Amos 5:15; Ps. 26:5; 139:21-22).  We dare not join in with a godless world that wants to justify massacre and redefine genocide and apartheid, calling good ‘evil’ and evil ‘good’ (Isa. 5:20; Prov. 17:15; Rom. 12:2; Col. 2:8).

6. Jews, Arabs, and all the inhabitants of Middle Eastern countries are God’s image-bearers, needing love, compassion and the Christian gospel (1 Cor. 9:16). We recognize the dignity and personhood of all persons and affirm God’s love for them as well as His offer of salvation through Jesus Christ to all people (Jn. 3:16-17; Rom. 1:16-17). Though we are not required to view Israel and its neighbours with an artificial equality of political support, we are required to reject racial or ethnic partiality (Gen. 1:26-27; 9:6; Jam. 2:1; 3:9).

7. We should recognise, however, that Christians have a unique relationship to the Jewish people, not paralleled with any other ethnic group (Jn. 4:22; Rom. 1:16). The Jewish people are the ethnic descendants of those who gave us our Bible and our Messiah (Rom. 3:1-2; 9:1-5). A relationship of respect, appreciation, and love should prevail, even when we recognise that many of them stand in opposition to the Gospel.

8. Even when God judged Israel using other nations, He still held those other nations accountable (Isa. 12-24; Jer. 46-51; Ezek. 25-32; Obadiah; Zech. 9,14). Nations that persecuted Israel were judged; nations that blessed them were blessed. It is always in the interest of a Gentile nation to treat Jewish people with respect and provide protection for them if they are attacked. It should be extended to the Jewish population of South Africa and in other countries today. It certainly should be extended to the state of Israel, with its primarily Jewish population.

9. We also recognize the difficult ministry of Jewish and Palestinian believers who labour for the gospel. We pray for their protection and for God’s blessing on their gospel ministry (Matt. 9:36-38; Eph. 6:18-20).

10. We must distinguish between the modern state of Israel and biblical Israel:  National Israel in Scripture is an ethnic people-group, descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Modern Israel is a secular state composed of a number of religious and ethnic groups. Biblical Israel was a theocracy; modern Israel is parliamentary democracy. Biblical Israel was a covenant nation that contained a remnant of true believers; modern Israel is a secular nation, with relatively few believers.

In light of our dispensational distinctives (futuristic premillennialism), we further affirm:

11. The land promises are given as an eternal inheritance to Abraham’s seed (Gen. 13:15). The ethnic descendants of Abraham are given the land as an eternal inheritance. Jews can justly claim the land of Israel as their inheritance. However, possession is not the same as inheritance. Possession of the land was dependent on Israel’s obedience; disobedience would mean expulsion from the land (Deut. 30:15-18). The promised regathering and re-possession of the land is prophesied to take place when Israel is regathered, and granted new hearts – with the complete fulfilment of the New Covenant. With those new hearts, they will obey God’s eternal law, and possess their inheritance (Jer. 31; Ezek. 36).

12. Therefore, at this time, unbelieving Jewish people stand in an ambiguous relationship to the land. As descendants of Abraham, the land is theirs by inheritance; but if they keep rejecting Messiah Jesus, they cannot possess it, on biblical grounds (Lev. 26; Deut. 28-29; 2 Kings 17). As citizens of modern Israel, the land is theirs to inherit and possess by the international laws of statecraft, war, and legal agreement.

13. According to Romans 11, the non-remnant (unsaved) Jewish people (national, ethnic Israel) are both “enemies” of the Gospel, but still “loved” by God as “His people” (Rom. 11:1-2, 28). They are temporarily under judgement, but God cares about His ancient people as the “apple of His eye”, and He cares about how others treat them (Zech. 2:8). How the world treats the Jews in Israel matters immensely (Gen. 12:2-3; 27:29; Num. 24:9; Psalm 122:6; Rev. 12).

 

 

[1] Partially adapted with much gratitude from here:  https://erlc.com/resource-library/statements/israel/

[2] Modern Israel is not an illegitimate nation, some trophy of war, or an arbitrary border drawn in the sand by one aggressive power. The Ottoman empire had been defeated in a just war, and the area was carved out of one decaying section, to provide a homeland for the displaced and decimated Jewish people, after the awfulness of the Holocaust. Many had lost home, wealth, and had lived in refugee camps. Israel provided a genuine homeland for the Jews. The original provision of the U. N. Partition plan were accepted by the Jewish people and rejected by the Arab powers.

[3] See good summary here: https://www.gotquestions.org/just-war-theory.html

[4] The charter of Hamas states: “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it….The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them.”

By Tim Cantrell – 26 October 2023

 

For our regular public reading of Scripture, our church has been going through the Psalms.  Last Sunday was Psalm 98 – a very timely and hope-filled song in light of the war in the Middle East and rising tensions globally.  Here it is, followed by a pastoral prayer leading our congregation in applying this psalm to our day.[1]

O sing to the Lord a new song,
For He has done wonderful things,
His right hand and His holy arm have gained the victory for Him.
² The Lord has made known His salvation;
He has revealed His righteousness in the sight of the nations.
³ He has remembered His lovingkindness and His faithfulness to the house of Israel;
All the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God.

 ⁴ Shout joyfully to the Lord, all the earth;
Break forth and sing for joy and sing praises.
⁵ Sing praises to the Lord with the lyre,
With the lyre and the sound of melody.
⁶ With trumpets and the sound of the horn
Shout joyfully before the King, the Lord.

 ⁷ Let the sea roar and all it contains,
The world and those who dwell in it.
⁸ Let the rivers clap their hands,
Let the mountains sing together for joy
⁹ Before the Lord, for He is coming to judge the earth;
He will judge the world with righteousness
And the peoples with equity.

Our Almighty King, our loving Father, our sovereign Lord – in Jesus’ saving name we approach Your royal courts, by His blood alone we stand boldly, and we come gladly before Your righteous throne.  We approach You, the Judge of all the earth, our omnipotent, gracious, and covenant-keeping God – faithful to “the house of Israel”. Savour of the “ends of the earth”.

Rightly has Isaac Watts taught us to join in this psalm: “Joy to the world, the Lord is come, let earth receive her King!”.  In this world crying out for justice, yet blinded by false, social justice – You have given us this song celebrating true, godly justice.

This psalmist spoke better than he knew:  Who can sing a “newer” (v. 1) song than us, who have new hearts and have found new life in Christ because of His New Covenant redemption – we who are the “one new man”, the body of the living Christ, His Church?

Truly Lord, You have done “wonderful things” (v. 1) – none more wonderful than saving us from our sins!  Your “righteousness” and Your “salvation” (vv. 2-3) supremely in Jesus and His glorious gospel.  Your saving, justifying action in Christ has rescued us eternally, and is being made known across the globe as Your gospel advances, as You build Your Church.

Nothing but Your ‘strong arm’ (v. 1) could have ever raised us from being dead in our trespasses, snatching us out of the vice grip of the world, the flesh, and the devil.  No wonder this psalm calls us to such exuberant joy and great celebration!

 No more let sins and sorrows grow,
Nor thorns infest the ground;
He comes to make His blessings flow
Far as the curse is found.

As Your Word tells us, “Creation groans in the pangs of childbirth until now” (Rom. 8), awaiting this promised day of our Lord’s 2^nd Coming, His return to this earth when He will “make all things new”, when all wrongs will be put right, when evil will be defeated once and for all.  So we cry out, ‘How long, O Lord, how long?!’

How long, O Lord, will this Satan-occupied, wicked world cause evil to abound, virtue to vanish, and moral outrage to disappear?  How long will public figures deny the Holocaust and side with genocidal murderers yet still graduate, keep their jobs and parade their views without shame in public?  How long will our media blame Israel for the atrocities done against her?!  How long will our world declare that any other nation can do its God-given job to defend itself and avenge its enemies, except for the Jewish nation?

Worst of all, O Lord, we see Your Church again joining in this Satanic antisemitism and Jew-hatred:  Just as Your apostle Paul repeatedly warned in Romans about the Gentile Church boasting of replacing the Jews, when instead we should be making them jealous by loving and evangelizing them (Rom. 9-11).  Your Word is so clear that one reason we trust Your faithful name and Your gospel’s credibility is that You have not abandoned Israel, though she is hardened in unbelief, under Your heavy judgment and in desperate need of the only gospel that saves.

Yet still the Jews are “Your people”, “beloved enemies” – against us because of the gospel, yet still we are for them “because of the fathers”.  Without Israel we would have no Bible, no Jesus, no Church, no gospel, no salvation (Rom. 9-11)!

Forgive us, Lord, if we have joined in any way in the Marxist lies and popular propaganda of this godless age that despises the Jews and anything representing the West – all because they hate You and Your Word, and the resulting order, beauty, freedom, human dignity and civilization that a biblical worldview has produced.

O God, if the day comes where the Jews must again flee their lands to find safe haven, may You so awaken and purify Your Church here in South Africa that they could flee here in droves and find many friends of Zion.

We owe such a great debt to the Jews; keep us mindful of this in an ungrateful, arrogant world.  Most of all, we owe it to Israel and to all nations to bring them the gospel – for Jew and Arab, African and Afrikaner alike!  Use us, Lord, use our church, use our seminary – use every sermon, every worship service, every worshipper here today – to plead with the lost to “flee the wrath to come”, to be saved before You come to “judge the earth, to judge the world with righteousness”, to judge all peoples “with equity”.

Joy to the earth, the Savior reigns!
Let men their songs employ;
While fields and floods, rocks, hills, and plains
Repeat the sounding joy!

 

 

[1] I’ve omitted various specific names and other items I also prayed for that were specific to our congregation and context.

By David De Bruyn

(excerpts from his sermon at New Covenant Baptist on Sunday, 15 October 2023)

The Middle East is always a tinder box, but what happened last week is unique in my lifetime. The murder of 1300 Jewish Israelis is the greatest slaughter of Jewish people since the Holocaust. The loss of Arab life also numbers 1400, and is surely set to rise as the War progresses. In our own history, we have nothing to compare with it. Sharpeville was a massacre of 63 people, the 76 Soweto riots 176, Boipatong was 45, Marikana was 47. This is an event of the magnitude of a 9/11.

And the casualness of the media, especially the South African media, towards this event is a story in itself. Silence speaks louder than words. In fact, the attitude of many Christians, that this is just some faraway political event shows how well certain kinds of propaganda have worked on the general population.

I think there are two important reasons why this is important enough to address from God’s Word today. The first is that Christians have a special relationship with the Jewish people, and derivatively, the homeland of the Jewish people, Israel. The Jewish people introduced us to the true and living God. The Jewish people gave us our Bible, both Old and New testament. …The Jewish people gave us our Messiah, Yeshua. We have a relationship, and a debt to the Jewish people that is unique among all the people-groups of the world. We should care very deeply about what happens to these people, how they are treated, and how they are portrayed.

The second reason has to do with an evil attitude that Christians should shun. There is a definite shift in the world’s attitude toward the Jewish people. The atrocities that were committed in the last week are unspeakable in their evil. And yet a spokesperson for the ruling party in our country said in a statement “that the actions of Hamas are unsurprising”. In other words, the Jews brought this on themselves. The Jews earned this. That’s exactly the kind of things that were said in the 1930s when the Jews began to be persecuted by the Germans. There is a wind blowing in the direction of a second Holocaust, condemning everything Israel does, and condoning anything done to Israel.

Christians need to be aware that this attitude is not simply a political opinion, like deciding where you stand on global warming or your position on immigration. This has deep spiritual roots. Revelation 12 shows the deep hatred Satan has for the woman who bore the Messiah, and that is not a reference to Mary, but to Israel. He has always despised the people of the Book and the people of the Christ.

Where we line up on the topic of the Jewish people and their homeland Israel has profound implications for our sanctification, for our loyalty to God. I believe God’s Word has passages that teach our relationship to Israel is a matter of obedience to the Father, not a mere political preference.

For our church, as a church planted in the Jewish areas, dedicated to spreading the hope of Israel to the people of Israel, this matters to us. It should matter to all Christians, but we would be remiss if we do not cement our position in a time like this. As a pastor, I would be remiss to fail to point out the dangers, and to call for obedience.

…During the coming Tribulation period, the kinds of things we are seeing now will intensify. Hatred and persecution of Israel and the Jews will increase tenfold. In that time, who will shelter them? What kinds of people will hide them in special rooms like the Ten Boom family? Who will shelter them like the Schindlers? What kinds of people will protect them from the new Gestapos, the AI-equipped Nazis.

The answer is, the people who feel a debt of love, who remember that these people, whether in belief or unbelief, gave us our Bible and our Messiah. People who remember their history, and know what happened in centuries before. People who know their Bibles and know that God promised to bless them that bless Abraham’s descendants, and will curse those that curse them (Gen. 12:3). Or to put it very simply: people who love those whom God loves. Romans 11:28 says of the Jewish people: “Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. (Romans 11:28)

They are “beloved”. What sort of person hates what God loves? Not the righteous. Not the sheep. To despise, destroy, hate and neglect the people chosen to bear the Messiah and carry God’s Word is to place yourself on the wrong side of coming judgement.  …this is no side-issue. This is not merely a political position. Christians do not hate the Jews, or support the rhetoric of those who do. One of the outward signs of inward salvation is how you treat the ancestors of our faith, the physical brethren of our Saviour (Matt. 25).

Paul’s grief for his Jewish countrymen is expressed in his desire for their salvation. He knows that is their deepest need. That’s why he begins Romans 10 this way: “Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved.” (v. 1) Our deepest desire for the Jewish people is that they may find their Messiah. He is the only hope for Israel, He is their ultimate rescuer, He is the only one who can ultimately solve the political situation

Loving Israel doesn’t mean we think of them as having a separate way of salvation. It doesn’t mean we think of them as a kind of parallel people of God, able to get to Heaven by works. No, we know, as Paul says “For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him.For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” (Romans 10:12–13) But this doesn’t mean we abandon or despise them if they don’t accept the gospel, like Martin Luther did. We keep seeking to provoke them to jealousy and live out Messiah before them (Rom. 11).

For some reason, some Christians get really bothered when we talk about praying for Israel, or recognising Israel has a special role to play. They think it is some kind of ethnocentrism, or racism, or partiality, or mere political Zionism, or taking away from Christ’s centrality. It’s quite striking. You say, “We should pray for Israel” and like a knee-jerk reaction, they respond “Well, we should also pray for the Palestinians!” And the response is, “Yes, we should. But why respond like that?” If I said, “We should pray for the children”, would you answer “We should pray for the adults, too!” No, I doubt it.

It is fine to recognise that different people have different callings, and we can accept that as God’s arrangement. Israel has a special calling among the nations of the world. They were the nation selected to bring God’s revelation to the world, and to bring the Messiah to the world. That special calling has brought them great pain and persecution. And that special calling is not over.Israel has a future role to play among the nations. There is no other nation named in God’s Word that is set apart for a future role to the nations (Zech. 14, etc.). It is not a symmetrical situation between Israel and every other nation. When we accept this special status, we are not being partial, or racist, or undermining the fact that the church is one people where ethnic status doesn’t matter. All of that remains true, and Israel still has a special role to play among the nations.

In fact, Christians, who have experienced God’s electing the church to salvation, should be the last people with a problem with God electing Israel to service. We should know God arranges His world as the Potter makes clay, calling and gifting as He chooses. Accepting another’s status or role or gifting is part of humility, submitting to God’s will and arrangement of His world (Paul’s whole point in Romans 9-11).

Proverbs 24 states:  “Deliver those who are drawn toward death, And hold back those stumbling to the slaughter. If you say, ‘Surely we did not know this,’ does not He who weighs the hearts consider it? He who keeps your soul, does He not know it? And will He not render to each man according to his deeds?” (vv. 11–12)

And to keep silent, to turn a blind eye, to look the other way while this kind of satanic hatred grows, is neither neighbourly nor Christlike. Christians defend people from evil malice. We have always done that. We defend the unborn. We defend the orphan. We defend the slave. We defend the abused. And so when we see this kind of satanic, mindless malice directed at the Jewish people, we would do well to defend them, to stand up for them.

The Hobbit was published in 1937 while the winds of Nazism were blowing strongly. A publisher in Berlin wrote to Tolkien, expressing interest in a German edition. In the few years before, that publisher, Rütten & Loening had been owned by German Jews, who were forced to sell in 1936 to “Aryan” Germans, according to the Nuremberg laws. The new owner, Albert Hachfeld, fired all the Jewish staff and dropped all Jewish writers. He then wrote to Tolkien, explaining that before they could begin work on a German version of “The Hobbit”, they needed to make sure of Tolkien’s Aryan descent, and to make sure he had no Jewish ancestry.

This is how Tolkien replied, “Thank you for your letter. I regret that I am not clear as to what you intend by arisch. I am not of Aryan extraction: that is Indo-Iranian; as far as I am aware none of my ancestors spoke Hindustani, Persian, Gypsy, or any related dialects. But if I am to understand that you are enquiring whether I am of Jewish origin, I can only reply that I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people.”

Whether it is slander, false witness, lies in speech, there is a time for us to speak up. Whether it is actual violence or targeted persecution, we should do what we can.

1 Chronicles 12:32 says, “the sons of Issachar who had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do”.  The men of Issachar understood the times so they knew how to respond. Do you understand the times, what is occurring around us? The world is polarising. There is a drift of opinion that is side-lining Christians, conservatives and the nation Israel. You can follow the goat pack because right now it is considered fashionable, enlightened, tolerant. I want my family, and I would want everyone in my church to land up on Jesus’ right and not on His left at this judgement (Matt. 25). Let us love what Christ loves.

By Tim Cantrell[1]
Sr. Pastor, Antioch Bible Church
October 2023

 

Infertility frames the whole story of the Bible and vexes countless couples with the burden of a barren womb, empty arms and an aching heart.[2]  Of all the severe tests of faith that God sent to our forefathers, childlessness has been one of the most common and most difficult – from Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, Jacob and Rachel, to Hannah, to the parents of Samson and of John the Baptist.  Yet in all these cases, God answered their anguished prayers with a child – all for His sovereign purposes in His redemption plan.

Nowhere in His Word has God promised a child to every married couple, though He promises His all-sufficient grace and abundant wisdom for every trial (2 Cor. 12:9-10; Jam. 1:5-8). Much wisdom is needed for Christian couples facing infertility and for churches in how to counsel them biblically.  Medical technology offers a wide array of proposed solutions which we must carefully understand, morally navigate, and sometimes reject in this modern minefield of a secularised, godless culture of death.

African countries have not been spared these humanistic ideas and murderous methods as the headlines testify[3], the court cases reveal[4], and the insurance companies cover.[5]  South Africa leads the way on the sub-continent, offering some 37 different IVF clinics countrywide.[6]

Why should the Christian Church speak out against in-vitro fertilisation?  We speak because God has spoken in His inerrant Word, which He has entrusted to His Church that we might be His “pillar and support of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).  For too long, being gospel-centred has become an excuse for being ethically indifferent, morally ambiguous, undiscerning and worldly.  If the Church will not be the “salt and light” Christ has called us to be in this dark and decaying society, as the conscience of the nation, then who will (Matt. 5:13-16)? [7]

If God’s people do not proclaim His holy Law, how can we call lost sinners to repent and be saved?  If God’s pillar of the Church will not hold high His absolute, unchanging standard, who will?  As R.C. Sproul wrote:

The commodification of children, the nonchalant manner in which [people] want to get rid of babies, and other issues raised by such cases send chills down one’s spine. Here we see the logical results of what happens when human beings have no fixed, objective standard of right and wrong.

 …Without clear, normative principles, we’re left rudderless in these situations. Our decisions apply principles in specific situations, but the situations cannot dictate the decisions. …Only the character of God as revealed in His law provides us with absolute norms for ethical issues.[8]

As Francis Schaeffer warned nearly 50 years ago:

…eventually every nation in every age must be judged by this test:  how did it treat people?  …we feel strongly that we stand today on the edge of a great abyss. …We seem to be in danger of forgetting our seemingly unlimited capacities for evil, once boundaries to certain behavior are removed.[9]

IVF was a method engineered in the 1970s, putting the sperm and egg in a Petri dish (“in vitro” = “in a glass”) to produce a fertilised embryo (a ‘test-tube baby’).  Here are two reasons I believe the Church must breaks its silence about the immorality of IVF.

 

(1) The Sanctity of Human Life

Our church’s doctrinal statement reads, “We believe that God created man in His own image, male and female, giving to human life an inherent sanctity from conception”.[10]  What even science now affirms has always been clear in Scripture, in both Old and New Testaments, that life begins at conception.  The unborn are God’s sacred image-bearers who may not be murdered but must be protected at all costs (Gen. 1-2; 25:22; Exod. 20:13; 21:22-25; Ps. 51:5; Ps. 139; Luke 1-2).  How we treat a human life shows how we treat the Creator Himself.

In 1978 when the first test-tube baby, Louise Brown, was born in England, the media announced that she let out, “a cry round the brave new world”, deliberately borrowing from Aldous Huxley’s book warning about the dehumanising dangers of technology.[11]

IVF technology raises a host of disturbing ethical questions about what is done to those precious little human embryos:  Even if the couple rightly insists that every embryo must be implanted, isn’t it assumed that there is still a high likelihood of some of the embryos perishing?[12]  Or will some embryos be frozen for later?[13]  How much later?  What if the couple then falls pregnant naturally, or one parent dies, or they get divorced, or a hundred other contingencies occur to prevent future implanting of those embryos?[14]

How sure are they that their ‘frozen children’ will not be used for Nazi-style stem-cell research and genetic engineering (embryo eugenics)?  Or adopted by a gay or lesbian couple?  Or marketed as ‘designer babies’, on sale to the highest bidder shopping for an embryo to suit all their consumer preferences, as in recent South African news?[15]

As Christian ethicist Norman Geisler states:

IVF means that we are knowingly causing the death of many tiny human beings in order to find one to develop. …The fact that many naturally fertilized ova spontaneously abort [miscarriages] is not relevant, for there is a significant moral difference between a natural death and a homicide.  So IVF is not a natural death; it is an artificially contrived and unnecessary death.[16]

Al Mohler writes:

This may be the most devastating moral reality of the IVF technology. …These  embryos are denied human dignity and are reduced to a frozen existence, awaiting either implantation, indefinite storage, or willful destruction. …IVF technologies destroy even as they claim to create, and the termination and disposal of human embryos is a reminder that the gruesome reality of the Third Reich is never far from us.

 A society that will destroy human life and discard unwanted frozen embryos has lost the vital sense of human dignity which is foundational to civilized society. A culture comfortable with the knowledge that fetuses are destroyed in the name of life can rationalize itself into arguments identifying some humans–born and unborn–as “life unworthy of life.” The abortion culture hangs over the IVF laboratory.

 …We must oppose the use of these technologies by those who would subvert the family, the marital covenant, and the Creator’s gift of sexual union and procreation. We must deny that what is technologically possible is therefore morally acceptable.[17]

 

(2) The Sanctity of Marriage

 For the Church, biblical language matters immensely: God says human life is “begotten”, not “made” (Gen. 5, etc.).  From the Garden (Gen. 1-2), our covenantal God has beautifully designed for procreation within the loving, exclusive bond of marriage, not through artificial, man-made devices or an intrusive third-party.

Christianity is not anti-science or anti-medicine.  Historically Christians have made some of the greatest medical and scientific advances and done the most to defend human dignity.  However, any technologies that undermine our Maker’s sacred institutions of marriage and family do far more harm than good.

Or as another Christian ethicist states:

There are serious costs to and from accepting technologies that separate the “one flesh” union of husband and wife. We think those costs are high enough that evangelical couples and pastors should say no to IVF. It’s past time to break evangelicalism’s silence about our complicity in the unethical circumstances that arise when sex and conception are divided.[18]

John Stonestreet writes:

…There are significant moral questions raised by artificial reproductive technologies such as IVF. For example, the destruction of human life that is, in most cases at least, part of the process; the fate of nearly one million frozen “excess” embryos; the moral consequences of separating reproduction from sex. To pretend that IVF and other reproductive technologies are morally neutral is to ignore obvious realities.

…Marriage, sex, and babies are a “package” deal as created by God and recognized throughout human history until just recently. The main idea of the sexual revolution has been to divorce sex, marriage and babies. …Christians must stop participating in any technology that creates excess embryos. Pastors need to know enough about IVF and be brave enough to counsel couples to make the right decision. …Christians must live counter-culturally when it comes to those factors that drive the use of IVF, such as delayed parenting and same-sex marriage. …God give us the kind of moral courage we need to live in this cultural moment.[19]

 

Conclusion

 Never is a child a right that we deserve; each son or daughter is a gracious gift of the Creator who opens and closes the womb (Isa. 66:9; Ps. 113; 127).  A dear sister in our church was converted through God using her infertility and almost succumbing to the IVF temptation to break her, exposing her failure to trust God and her need for a Saviour.  Another Christian sister writes:

As soon as you create new human beings with someone, you are their parent, whether you freeze those children and put them into storage, give them to researchers for experimentation, or enable them to be born. Please, I am begging you, do not contribute to this cavalier treatment of human beings—of your own children.

 …If you have already done something you regret that can’t be reversed, then I mourn with you. The church has failed you by not giving you the tools you needed to think through this.[20]

Here is the Feinbergs’ conclusion after the most thorough study of IVF I’ve found in any textbook on Christian ethics:

On the basis of the preceding discussion, we believe that there are enough moral questions associated with IVF to conclude that at the current state IVF technology is still morally wrong.[21]

South African pastor De Bruyn sums it up well:

The problem here is that for the sake of obtaining one fertilised zygote, many are sacrificed. This means that doctors/scientists are knowingly causing the deaths of multiple human beings to obtain one that survives. Until the technology improves to where human life is not wasted or taken, Christians should consider other options.[22]

As for people we know who were born through IVF, we fully welcome them as fellow image-bearers, regardless of how they were conceived.  All of us are the product of the Fall; and “where sin abounds, grace much more abounds” (Rom. 5:20).  Praise God that there is forgiveness full and free in Christ for all who know they have sinned in the past in their use of IVF but have truly repented of it.

Yet this is not a cheap grace, but a transforming grace that we might “go and sin no more” (Rom. 6; Jn. 8:11).  We rejoice in those few, brave couples willing to swim upstream against our IVF-obsessed society – like the one couple who testified, “A little boy or girl created with our own genetic material is not morally worth the many inevitable deaths of his or her embryonic brothers and sisters.”[23]

When heartbroken couples in our churches yearn for a child, we must learn to “weep with those who weep” and to “bear one another’s burdens” (Rom. 12:15; Gal. 6:2).  As pastors we must teach and model a biblically sound, full-orbed theology of suffering, trusting the wise and good purposes of our loving, sovereign, compassionate Lord who will sanctify our every affliction: “casting all your anxiety on Him, because He cares for you” (1 Pet. 5:7; cf. Rom. 5:3-5; 8:28-29; Jam. 1:3-4).

Our heavenly Father still delights to employ every childless Christian couple to play a vital role in His grand redemption story.  One day He will wipe every tear from our eyes and we will all feast joyfully at His table in a very full house (Rev. 21:4; Matt. 8:11; Lk. 14:23).

 

~~~~~

 

Appendix A – Insights on IVF from Gilbert Meilaender, Bioethics: A Primer for Christians:

To some degree in artificial insemination, and to a considerably greater degree in IVF, we make of our body an instrument to be used in the pursuit of our goals.  We do not simply give ourselves bodily in the act of love, but we instrumentalize the body and use it in order to produce a child.  In one sense, of course, this is an exercise of our freedom not unlike others in which we make use of objects and even other animals in the world to achieve our goals.  To do so is to exercise the dominion given humankind by the Creator.

 Caution is needed, however, when the “object” used is the living human body, the place of personal presence.  For in so instrumentalizing the body we are tempted to think of ourselves as only free spirit detached from the body.  The real “I” becomes that free and unconstrained will that now exercises dominion even over the body it uses.  What we risk here is a separation of person and body that demeans the body and makes of it a “thing”.

 It is not surprising, then, if we also come to think of the child who results from this process as a product – as made, not begotten. …In begetting we form another with whom we share a nature equal in being and dignity. …But if we make a child, we determine its meaning and use.  …IVF raises this issue in an obvious way by forcing us to contemplate the moral status of the embryo.  …We are increasingly able to “screen” that embryo before it is implanted, to determine whether it is free of certain defects. …to consider whether this particular product of conception is one we desire, one whose worthiness for life we wish to affirm.

 …We need not suppose that every couple setting foot on this path will come to think of their child as a product over which they must exercise quality control; but we deceive ourselves if we imagine that the routinized use of such techniques cannot and will not teach us to think about children in new and different ways.

 Thus, even if we refrain from claiming that assisted reproduction without third-party collaboration is wrong, we have good reason to fear some of the lessons it teaches us. …[Our world is] already a long way in medicine toward losing the sense that the living body is the person, toward separating person and body.  Assisted reproduction, however compelling and understandable its lure, leads us still further in that direction.  We need to resist its lure and recognize its temptations.

 …Without in any way undervaluing the presence of children, we should also be free of the idolatrous desire to have them at any cost – as our project rather than God’s gift. …A couple unable to have children can – and should – find other ways in which their union may, as a union, turn outward and be fruitful.  God blesses in many different ways, and the task he does not lay upon us may be replaced by other tasks less open to those who have children, and equally significant…. (pp. 19-20, 23-24).

 

Appendix B – On the Distinction Between Adoption & IVF, on Caring for Orphans vs. Creating Orphans:

…There’s a convincing case to be made that these practices [assisted reproductive technologies] amount to the exploitation of women, the creation of virtual orphans, the destruction of human lives, and commercial manufacture of children.

 … Adoption is the remedying of a sin or tragedy that’s already taken place. It’s redemptive in nature. It replaces and repairs what has been broken–it takes orphans already made and turns them into sons and daughters. And to that extent, it mimics the action of God, Himself, in salvation. Surrogacy (and IVF typically), on the other hand, is the equivalent of making orphans in order to adopt them. It creates brokenness to fulfill adult desires.[24]

 

Appendix C – An Alternative to IVF?

A recent alternative to IVF is GIFT (Gamete Intra Fallopian Transfer). In this case ovum and sperm, after being mixed, are immediately transferred to the end of the fallopian tube, where conception takes place as normal. Many consider GIFT to be preferable to IVF. Technically, it is simpler and cheaper. Ethically, it precludes the production of ‘spare’ embryos for research. (https://www.kairos2.com/abortion.htm)[25]

 

Appendix D – Excerpt from Position Statement of Christian Medical & Dental Association on “Assisted Reproductive Technology”:

 …Before the 1970’s adoption was the common solution for couples facing infertility – a solution encouraged and lauded by society. …Paradoxically, the advent of IVF has increased the anguish for some infertile couples. Because these technologies are now available (to those who can afford them), couples must make choices about whether to undergo such assistance, how many cycles to attempt, etc. Such additional choices can cause turmoil – socially, financially, relationally, and morally.

(https://cmda.org/reproductive-issues/)

 

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________

[1] This was written on behalf of our church eldership, as a guideline for shepherding believers to think biblically about IVF so that they can make wise decisions for their household.

[2] As many can testify: https://blog.tms.edu/shaping-our-emotional-responses-to-infertility

[3] https://www.thecitizen.co.tz/tanzania/news/national/smiles-for-45-women-after-successful-ivf-at-kairuki-hospital-4372426; https://www.timeslive.co.za/tshisa-live/tshisa-live/2023-08-17-gogo-maweni-reveals-she-and-her-husband-are-expecting-twins-conceived-via-ivf/; https://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/south-africa/2021-01-15-ivf-baby-is-on-a-mission-to-help-other-women-become-moms-with-the-doc-who-helped-conceive-her-by-her-side/

[4] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S240566181630020X; https://www.iol.co.za/pretoria-news/news/its-impossible-by-law-to-freeze-embryos-says-judge-1ee6200e-dc2d-41a0-be3d-adb900c88065; https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/dewb.12422

[5] https://www.discovery.co.za/medical-aid/assisted-reproductive-therapy-benefit;

[6] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6822948/;

[7] Surveys show how calloused our society has become, with the vast majority of people having no moral reservations about IVF: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2013/08/15/abortion-viewed-in-moral-terms/

[8] https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/principles-and-situations

[9] pp. 281-282 in Whatever Happened to the Human Race, in Vol. 5 of The Complete Works of Francis Schaeffer

[10] https://www.antiochbiblechurch.org.za/what-we-believe/

[11] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jul/08/ivf-in-vitro-fertilisation-louise-brown-born

[12] https://www.forbes.com/health/family/ivf-success-rates-by-age/

[13] An estimated 1.4 million embryos are currently frozen in the USA alone!

[14] God’s Word warns us against “boasting in tomorrow” (Prov. 27:1; Jam. 4:13-17).  See here on the shocking number of abandoned and destroyed embryos in the millions:  https://www.nbcnews.com/health/features/nation-s-fertility-clinics-struggle-growing-number-abandoned-embryos-n1040806; https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-destruction-of-thousands-of-embryos-reveals-just-how-under-regulated-fertility-clinics-are_n_5aab04bfe4b0c33361af1b45; https://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article/17-million-human-embryos-created-ivf-thrown-away;

[15] https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2023-04-23-south-africa-needs-legislation-to-regulate-and-formalise-embryo-adoption/

[16] p. 194 in Christian Ethics

[17] In his excellent two-part essay:  https://albertmohler.com/2005/09/29/christian-morality-and-test-tube-babies-part-one-2; https://albertmohler.com/2006/05/12/christian-morality-and-test-tube-babies-part-two

[18] https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/evangelicalisms-silence-ivf/

[19] https://breakpoint.org/breakpoint-the-ivf-needle-baby/; https://breakpoint.org/snowflake-adoption-is-wonderful-but-it-is-not-the-solution/

[20] https://www.str.org/w/the-tragic-consequences-of-the-ivf-industry#.W2JN9i0ZPBI

[21] p. 428, Ethics for a Brave New World, 2^nd Edition.  Note that Grudem’s otherwise superb textbook on ethics disagrees with Geisler and the Feinbergs and naively defends IVF with little consideration of the major ethical and worldview concerns.  See this lengthy rebuttal to Grudem: https://mereorthodoxy.com/responding-dr-wayne-grudem-vitro-fertilization

[22] From his lecture notes for a Sunday School class on ethics at New Covenant Baptist Church, Johannesburg

[23] https://www.breakpoint.org/one-couples-decision-to-forgo-ivf/

[24] https://www.patheos.com/blogs/troublerofisrael/2017/06/on-surrogacy-ivf-evangelicals-are-dropping-the-ball-again/

[25]Available in South Africa:  https://wiredspace.wits.ac.za/items/8a774717-9705-43f6-94e9-236c059ab545; https://www.health-tourism.com/gift/south-africa/

By Tim Cantrell

The early church faced a world blanketed by paganism. Christianity was birthed in a small, insignificant Roman outpost at the time (Israel).  Yet within three centuries, this so-called ‘new’ religion had spread across the Mediterranean and would soon conquer the Roman empire itself.  The spread of Christianity against impossible odds has shocked historians, even the famous agnostic author, Edward Gibbons, in his renowned Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.[1]  T.R. Glover of Cambridge said of this unlikely victory:  ‘The early Christians out-lived, out-thought and out-died their pagan contemporaries.’[2]

Why Worldview Matters

 Glover’s words sum up exactly why our church (where I pastor) in Johannesburg, Antioch Bible Church, is committed to equipping our people with a biblical worldview.  Because we know the only way our world will be impacted for Christ is if we live better.  And we can’t live better unless we think better, and are willing to die for our faith.  To do this, we must “be transformed by the renewing of our minds” (Rom. 12:2).

Every believer and every church is given this worldview mandate: “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ” (Col. 2:8).

Do we believe what the Apostle Paul said about our ascended, exalted Christ, that “He put all things in subjection under His feet…” (Eph. 1:22)?  As the Dutch theologian, politician and worldview trailblazer, Abraham Kuyper, once said, “There is not one square inch in the universe over which the Lord Christ cannot say, ‘That is mine.’”[3]

What a thought:  That those feet which were once weak, pierced and bleeding on a cross are now strong, glorified and exalted on a throne, with everything placed under the rule of a sovereign, all-powerful Christ!  Every atom and molecule in the universe, every crystal and every chromosome, every tragedy and every triumph in history, serving His purposes for the good of His Church, in the sure and certain fulfilment of His Great Commission (Eph. 1:23).

Christ imposes His laws on all creation.  There is no corner of the universe where He does not enforce His will.  His truth in Scripture is the standard by which we must measure all truth claims (Jn. 17:17).  One day, when King Jesus returns to this earth, He will put His foot on the neck of every last enemy and set up His visible, earthly kingdom.  Only then will we fully realise what He meant when He said, “All authority in heaven and on earth belongs to Me” (Matt. 28:18).

However, in this Church age, for a season Christ has ordained that Satan be allowed a competing kingdom under which most of the world is subjected.  This worldly realm brings with it ways of thinking and acting that are in stark contrast to Christ’s kingdom – thus the clash of worldviews.  This Satanic dominion is not passive; it actively and aggressively seeks to educate and disciple our people.  That is why we must seize every opportunity to help believers to un-learn the ways of Satan’s kingdom and to learn the ways of Christ’s kingdom.

In a world where male-headship is challenged from all sides and the role of men and women confused, it is necessary to emphasise the importance of family worship in the Christian home. We must bring back godly, faithful, family Bible studies, lest they dwindle away. We must fight to bring back this almost forgotten family discipline!

How should we respond to Uganda’s latest laws against homosexuality, as one of some 30 African countries that still have such laws? (https://www.news24.com/news24/africa/news/uganda-passes-bill-banning-identifying-as-lgbtiqa-20230321)

Some of our church members have been asking, so here are a few thoughts (with help also from my friend, Mark Christopher; and from Grudem’s textbooks on biblical politics & ethics):

(1) We have no defense for hypocritical dictators who hide their lust for power and money behind a guise of traditional morality (e.g., Museveni has been president since 1986, for the last 37 yrs).  Such new laws may also be wrongly used in witch-hunt scenarios where someone is falsely accused of homosexuality for the sake of political expedience.

(2) Uganda allows for polygamy, which is certainly a violation of creation ethics of a one-man one-woman monogamous union. So, it would seem that the motivation for the anti-homosexual law is not rooted in concern for biblical marriage as God defines it.

(3) Old Covenant civil laws for Israel’s theocracy are not binding today on the Church or nations. Yet God’s Law is still part of His inspired Word and reveals His moral will for all humanity, for the sanctity of marriage and for sexual purity. Nations would be prudent to pattern their laws after God’s good, wise and holy Law.

(4) A good place to start would be to define what marriage is (as well as gender distinction) and make policy based on a Judeo-Christian understanding of marriage, gender, and family.  Then for the state to say that any distortions of what constitutes the clearly defined one-man one-woman union are not recognized as legitimate forms of marriage.

(5) The mission of the Church is to proclaim clearly all the threats of God’s Law and all the invitations of His gospel – to declare a Saviour who died for us all, immoral sinners and lawbreakers of every kind. Yet any who repent and call on His name can be pardoned of all their sin, washed and cleansed by His blood, and live a transformed life by His grace!

(6) Christians must maintain biblical and historical perspective and not bow to the aggressive homosexual agenda of recent decades and their radical redefining of ‘human rights’. We should advocate for a very limited, non-intrusive role for government – ordained by God for “the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right” (1 Pet. 2:14).

(7) Before recent times, sodomy laws were almost universal, not out of hatred for anyone but because of biblical influence, fear of God, love for neighbour, protection of marriage & family, and preservation of society. Chief Justice Warren Burger (US Supreme Court, 1986) stated:

Decisions of individuals relating to homosexual conduct have been subject to state intervention throughout the history of Western civilization. Condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards… To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millenia of moral teaching.