Patriarchy and the Family Integrated Church Emphasis in SBC Seminaries: A Potential Embarrassment for the SBC

There is a growing movement within far right conservative evangelical circles called the Family Integrated Church (FIC). The goal of the Family Integrated Church movement is for churches to conduct family worship, so as to not separate families into "age-group" ministries or worship (i.e. children, youth, married adults, etc . . . ). Family Integrated Churches desire "fathers to take their God-ordained role of spiritual leadership" and for a family to worship with their father, the spiritual authority and covering for all the family members. While the goals of the Family Integrated Church sound fine when one first hears them, it is the philosphical underpinnings of the Family Integrated Church that give the potential for future embarrassment to the evangelical church, particularly the Southern Baptist Convention.

The FIC movement is built upon the the principles of patriarchy. Patriarchy is a Greek word which means "father rule." In essence, patriarchy teaches that the male in the family (i.e. the progenitor or originator of the family) has the inherent authority over - and the power to rule - the entire family. In short, patriarchy is the belief in male dominance. Bill Gothard spiritualized patriarchy by proposing what he called "an umbrella of protection" provided by the father for the entire family, and any family member who remains under the "authority" of the father is protected from harm. Gothard's views express the the extreme logical conclusions of patriarchy within Christian circles.

Patriarchy Is NOT Necessarily Biblical

It is unnecessary to believe the Bible to hold to patriarchy, and it is possible to believe the Bible and renounce patriarchy and male domination. For example, Dr. Steven Goldberg, chairman of the Department of Sociology at the City of New York College, wrote a book entitled The Inevitablity of Patriarchy. Dr. Goldberg is not an evangelical Christian or Bible believer and says of his book:

"This book is not concerned with the question of whether male domination of hierarchies is morally or politically 'good' or 'bad'. Moral values and political policies, by their nature, consist of more than just empirical facts and their explanation. 'What is' can never entail 'what should be', so science knows nothing of 'should'. 'Answers' to questions of 'should' require subjective elements that science cannot provide."

Dr. Goldberg believes that the world will be male dominated because of biology - in short, testosterone. Goldberg believes patriarchy is the way the world is because males seek "attainment," "domination," and "power over others" because they are biologically bent to do so.

Likewise, many evangelical Bible-believing Christians who understand biology and the tendency of all men to dominate, renounce patriarchy or "this inherent desire to rule" as the anti-thesis of the Christian life as revealed by Christ and the New Covenant Scriptures. For example, the consevative theologian Dr. Gilbert Bilezikian, author of the article I Believe in Male Headship writes that . . .

The word head is used five times in the New Testament to define the relation of Christ to the church. As will be shown below, the use of head is consistent in all of those texts.

Eph. 1:22-23. The passage that immediately precedes this text exalts the supremacy of Christ in his session. But in relation to the church, the role of Christ is described as being appointed as head for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way. The headship of Christ is never over the church in the New Testament. Here, it is for the church. As head, Christ gives the church fullness. He provides for the church's growth. The function is not one of authority but of servant provider of what makes the church's growth possible.

Eph. 4:15-16. Christ is the head from whom the whole body grows and builds itself up. The function of the head in relation to the body is to provide it with growth. Headship is not an authority role but a developmental servant function.

Eph. 5:23. The husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which is the Savior. As head of the church, Christ is its Savior. If head had meant authority, the appropriate designation for Christ would have been "Lord" instead of "Savior" which is consistently a self-sacrificing, life-giving servant role in the New Testament.

Col. 1:18-19. Christ is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead. Through his blood, shed on the cross, all things are reconciled to God. In a passage that celebrates Christ's supremacy over all creation, this text describes Christ as the source of the life of the church through his resurrection from the dead and because of the reconciliation obtained through his self-sacrificing servant ministry at the cross. Headship is not defined in terms of authority but as servant provider of life.

Col. 2:19. Christ is the head from whom the whole body grows. The function of head in relation to the body is not one of rulership but of servant provider of growth. Christ as head to the church is the source of its life and development.

This survey indicates that head, biblically defined, means exactly the opposite of what it means in the English language. Head is never given the meaning of authority, boss or leader. It describes the servant function of provider of life, growth and development. This function is not one of top-down oversight but of bottom-up support and nurture.

The Implications of Demanding Southern Baptists All Be Patriarchal

It's fine for individual Southern Baptists and Southern Baptists to hold to patriarchy if they choose, and it seems from the connections here that at least two Southern Baptist seminaries have chosen to advocated patriarchy and Family Integrated Churches. Faculty at Southern are currently being asked to begin the process of converting all "Leadership and Christian Ministry" degrees over to "Family Integrated Worship" degrees. The problems, and potential embarrassment for our Convention, come when self-appointed spokesmen for the Southern Baptist Convention act to the media as if all Southern Baptist churches and Southern Baptist individuals hold to and advocate patriarchy.

While some Southern Bapitsts cherish patriarchy and believe "complementarianism" is a compromise word, there are a number of Southern Baptists who believe the advent of patriarchy and Family Integrated churches could be detrimental to our Convention if it is ever allowed to be presented as the ONLY biblical, conservative, evangelical model for ministry and worship. We must remember that we are a cooperating Convention, not a conforming Convention.

The Problems of Family Integrated Churches

Southern Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky announced the hiring of Dr. Randy Stinson in the fall of 2006 as the dean of Southern’s School of Leadership and Church Ministry. Stinson also continues to serve as executive director of The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. In the statement that Dr. Albert Mohler, Jr. made concerning the appointment of Randy Stinson as dean and the school's Family Integrated Church (FIC) specialist, he says that Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS) holds to a “family-centered vision of church ministry.”

We commend Southern for their emphasis on "the family" but would like to caution all Southern Baptists about the dangers of accepting patriarchy as the "only" Biblical view of church ministry. Cindy Kunsman, a highly intelligent conservative, evangelical female inerrantist is writing on her blog about the connections between Family Integrated Ministries, patriarchy, and Southern Baptist seminaries, including Southern Theological Seminary. It takes persistence and concentration to work your way through her research at her blog, called Under Much Grace, but the end result is a gold mine of understanding of the potential embarrassment patriarchy could cause the SBC if left unchallenged from a Biblical New Convenant perspective. Cindy writes about the effects of patriarchal views in the local church:

The church, per the hierarchical view, becomes a family of many, many families over which the local elders preside. Men, as the heads of their families, become the focus of ministry in the local church, and ministry then proceeds from men to their individual family members. Church ministry is thus mediated by the federal head. As a consequence of this form of government, the wife holds no independent relationship to the church that is apart from the family or male headship.

Therefore, with the FIC emphasis, what does the local church do in terms of:
(1). Ministry to singles, particularly single women?
(2). Ministry to the divorced and widowed?
(3). Ministry to children whose parents are lost?
(4). Ministry to women who come from abusive homes?
(5). Ministry to families who are fracturing?

Obviously, FIC could provide answers to the above questions, but I am uninterested in the specifics and very interested in the principle, suggested by FIC as a "Biblical principle" that the father alone is the "head" and "authority" in the home. This type of "covering" provided by the male, seems to be a direct contradiction to the teaching that in Christ there is "neither male or female" and the head of of all individuals is Jesus Christ Himself. Further, there will be NO marriage in heaven, and the concept of the nuclear "family" with the male providing the authority needed for "Family Worship" is foreign to the New Covenant concept of Christianity. As Cindy Kunsman astutley observes . . .

Our natural relatives do not take precedence over our relationships within the Body of Christ.

The body of Christ is composed of divorced, widowed, orphaned, single, abandoned, outcast, rejected people - as well as families with a traditional father, mother and children. Demands that all Southern Baptist churches be Family Integrated Churches and offer only Family Integrated Worship, even if it occurs through producing pastors who graduate from seminaries that teach the Family Integrated Church concept, will eventually cause our Southern Baptist churches to lose their ability to minister to a dysfunctional and fractured society. The church of Jesus Christ transcends culture, and in heaven there will be neither marriage nor the giving in marriage. A slice of heaven on earth is when men and women are treated equally in the church of Jesus Christ and neither one gender, or the other, are viewed as the "authorities" or "rulers."

I sometimes wonder if our Southern Baptist seminaries teaching of male domination is the reason why Southern Baptist women are being bypassed for, or removed from, positions on seminary faculty, administrative positions at the IMB and NAMB, and other various positions where a woman has "authority" over a man.

I also wonder what some Southern Baptist leaders are saying publicly (and in private) about Sarah Palin?

Stay tuned.

In His Grace,


Wade

For Your Weekend Entertainment

My friend and Emmanuel's Executive Pastor Dan Heath sent to me and our entire staff some surprising news footage this afternoon. Just click on the small play button at the bottom left of the viewer to watch the shocking video footage.

I personally don't think Senators McCain and Obama have as much to worry about as the reporter seems to think they do.

:)

Have a great weekend.

Wade

Sarah Palin and Character Assassination

James wrote about the human experience, "For we all stumble in many ways" (James 3:2). Yet, to listen to some of the political pundits and media experts, Vice-Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin is the only one who has ever run for national office and had family problems, personal problems, or conflict of interest problems. Sadly, some who lean left have even suggested she is a bad mother, deceitful, and vindictive.

It is almost an axiom of human nature that when you disagree with one's positions, are fearful of the effect your opponent may have on altering the big picture, you attack the character of the person you wish to defeat. Unfortunately, the art of character assassination in Christian circles is alive and well. Whether it be from the one end of the spectrum of an issue under debate or the opposite end (i.e. "the IMB policies," "sole membership," "Resolution 5," etc . . . ), there is a tendency within the Southern Baptist Convention to castigate the character of the person who disagrees with you. After I wrote a post about leading a woman and her husband to faith in Jesus Christ and the resultant restoration of their marriage, my worship pastor, Dan Heath, told me he ran into one of our Southern Baptist conservative leaders at the airport who asked Dan what it was like to to work with a pastor who advocated drinking. According to Dan, the intonation in which this was said, in the presence of others, gave the impression I was some kind of drunk. Never mind the fact that the post is self-explanatory, never mind the fact that this woman came to faith in Christ and is now an active, serving member of our fellowship who herself abstains from drunkenness, and never mind the fact that this Conservative leader has never spoken to me about the issue, the fact of the matter is, when other people are being influenced to take a different position than your's, it is tempting to attack the character of your opponent.

So it is with the Democrat leadership. They must be afraid of Sarah Palin. They must recognize that a large number of their female constintuency with Lieberman's conservative leanings will vote for Palin because they like her, and they like what she is saying on the issues. What then can those Democratic strategists do? Well, after softening their plank to advocate homosexual marriage, condone late term abortions, and proffer other immoral issues as their official platform, they will attack Palin's character - because her seventeen year old daughter is pregnant. Somehow, there is humor in all this.

May all of us involved with political processess, whether they be national and secular, or denominational and religious, focus on the issues and leave the character attacks at home.

In His Grace,

Wade

What Gulf Hurricanes May One Day Teach Southern Baptists About the Subtle But Significant Changes Occuring in SBC Polity

Southern Baptists historically have believed in and defended the autonomy of the local church, the independence of Southern Baptist agencies from one another, and the grassroots power held by Southern Baptists at large. Some conservative Southern Baptist leaders, joining other mainlain demoninations, act as if autonomy is madness. From our beginnings, Southern Baptists have differed from other denominations in polity and governance in that we have never had a system of top/down authority where an ecclesiastical head, synod, or other "authoritative" body could ever instruct, demand or otherwise control any Southern Baptist entity or church. But that seems to be changing.

Historically, boards of trustees govern Southern Baptist entitities and congregations are the highest authority in the church. Autonomous Southern Baptist churches choose to cooperate on missions and evangelism around the world, and elect trustees who govern our Convention's agencies. If a Southern Baptist agency becomes askew and needs correction, then individual trustees must do what they can to correct the problem. Then, if the problem is not corrected, the Southern Baptist Convention must replace trustees with those who will reflect the mind and heart of the highest authority in the Southern Baptist Convention - the local churches that compose our Convention. If and when there comes a time or occasion that the Southern Baptist Convention as a whole violates an inviolable (sacred) Baptist principle, then the only alternative for the Baptist who disagrees is to leave the Southern Baptist Convention. For this reason, our Convention, that is our local, autonomous churches who form the Southern Baptist Convention, should be very cautious about adopting any motion that takes "authority" away from autonomous churches and places it in the hands of a a few.

Concerns over "Liberalism" Brings the Loss of Autonomy

Concerns over "liberal" moves among Southern Baptist agencies have led our Convention to adopt a centralized form of control that seems to be destroying the fabric of Southern Baptist polity as we once knew it. Demands that Southern Baptist churches, pastors, trustees "conform" to doctrinal decrees issued from the top down has more in common to Roman Catholic papal bulls than the historic practice of autonomous Baptist churches issuing individual church confessions and cooperating in missions with other autonomuos Baptist churches around a basic confession of faith that left off tertiary doctrines. That's not to say tertiary doctrines are not important to local churches. Rather, to preserve the polity of individual autonomous churches and the spirit of cooperation in mission tasks, Southern Baptists have historically resisted the move toward a centralized hierachial authority on matters of doctrine. This centralized demand for "doctrinal conformity" began with the President of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1998 appointing a Baptist Faith and Message that reflected a "conservative" viewpoint on doctrinal matters historically absent from Baptist Confessions. At the time I was bothered by this demand for doctrinal conformity, but said little because of my personal agreement with the doctrine. What bothered me was the forced separation from those who disagreed by using the document as a club of accountability against autonomous churches. That seemed to me, again, to be more Roman Catholic in polity than Baptist.

But in recent months, I have seen how the "centralized authority" of Southern Baptists has become far more dangerous. Recent doctrinal "bulls" on issues such as closed communion, the cessation of spiritual gifts, the authority of the baptizer, the prohibition of women teaching men, and other such "doctrines" which go even beyond the 2000 BFM are being forced on cooperating Southern Baptist churches by Southern Baptist trustee boards at the International Mission Board, the North American Mission Board, and some of our Southern Baptist seminaries. The rationale of these trustees is that they are the "authority" on such matters, and the decisions of individual, autonomous Southern Baptist churches have no merit.

Southern Baptists in the pew don't seem to really care about historic Baptist polity when it comes to doctrinal matters. But, one of these days, a hurricane in Gulf may wake us all up.

Sole Membership

In 2005 the Southern Baptist Convention approved a recommendation called "sole membership." Sole membership grants legal ownership of every Southern Baptist agency to the Southern Baptist Convention. As explained by the Convention's attorneys at the time, sole membership, gives to the Southern Baptist Convention "the right to approve charter amendment, and to approve the dissolution, merger, or sale of the institution. This sounds really good - if the Convention as a whole makes those decisions. But in reality, the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist acts "as the Convention between Conventions," and decisions can be made by the Executive Committee without full Convention approval. This works fine and dandy when the Executive Committee takes actions respectful of, and consistent with, Baptist principles and Convention wishes, and when the Executive Committee is composed of men and women who understand the importance of local church and agency autonomy (as it does now). But we have seen at the International Mission Board what happens when an individual board of trustees acts without Convention approval and inverts historic Baptist polity by declaring they have "authority" over local Southern Baptist churches.

God forbid that the spirit of the SBC Executive Committee ever becomes like the spirit of some of the leaders on the 2005 International Mission Board regarding "authority" in the SBC. Church autonomy meant nothing to them. Local church authority was insignificant. "We" have the truth, and you better follow "us" or you are not a real Southern Baptist and cannot cooperate in Southern Baptist missions. In a similar manner, there were a few SBC agency heads and trustees who complained during the "sole membership" debate that the Executive Committee was taking over "their" authority as independent, autonomous Southern Baptist boards and agencies. In my opinion, they were right. BUT, the EC may have learned it from agency boards who have been doing the same thing to local churches.

Prior to 2005, for any Southern Baptist entitity to be dissolved, merged, or sold, it required agency trustee approval. The only "control" the Southern Baptist Convention had over individual agencies prior to the 2005 "sole membership" vote was the appointment of agency trustees. This, however, did not seem enough to some conservative Southern Baptist leaders. Afraid of the actions of rogue Baptist trustee boards, the Southern Baptist Convention pressed for "sole membership." The cause for concern included Baptist agencies in Texas, including Baylor trustees who voted to cut ties with the Convention. Likewise, in Missouri, five Baptist agencies separated from the Missouri Baptist Convention.

Concerns over "liberal" moves among Southern Baptist agencies have led our Convention to adopt a centralized form of control that may one day, in practice, destroy the fabric of Southern Baptist polity as we once knew it. Dr. Chuck Kelley, pictured here signing the documents handing over the assets of NOBTS to the SBC Executive Committee (Update: please see Augie Boto's comments after this post where he states my conclusions in this paragraph and the next three are erroneous), vigorously opposed "sole membership" because he knew the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention could one day close New Orleans Seminary, sell the assets, and the trustees of New Orleans Theological Seminary would have no say in the matter. Dr. Kelley said during the debate over "sole membership."

Sole membership is a step toward the centralization of control authority," Kelley said. "It is not the size of the step but the direction of the step which causes our concern."

He pointed to a story the seminary submitted to Baptist Press, in which Kelley said BP "refused to print a brief statement from the trustees ... explaining to Southern Baptists why they did not want to do sole membership."

"Whatever you think about this issue, denying a messenger-elected board of conservative trustees the opportunity to communicate with Southern Baptist Convention

I sympathize with Dr. Kelley. If hurricane Gustav had destroyed New Orleans, or if hurricane Hannah turns west and brings flooding to New Orleans, or if another future hurricane brings devastation to the city which hosts New Orleans Theological Seminary, the Executive Committee in Nashville, Tennessee, NOT the board of directors of NOTBS, could vote to sell, merge or otherwise close the New Orleans Theological Seminary - without the seminary's trustees approval, OR Southern Baptist Convention approval. Attorneys for the Executive Committee would argue that the Executive Committee IS the Convention between Conventions, and legally, they would be right. But it is really dangerous when just a few men control entire Conventions or autonomous churches by their personal whims or feelings. One day the Executive Committee just up and get tired of rebuilding New Orleans Seminary (as some IMB trustees seemed to tire of missionaries who prayed in tongues), and they very well might shut it down. The New Orleans President and NOBTS trustees may wake up one day and wondered what happened to their seminary. Where did "their authority" in answering the question of whether or not New Orleans Seminary should remain open go? They might just feel a little like what an autonomous Southern Baptist church feels when a Southern Baptist agency forbids to appoint a missionary candidate whose baptism by immersion, which the church accepted, has been rejected. The missionary candidate's baptism, which meets the qualifications of the concensus doctrinal statement of the Convention (the 2000 BFM) - but doesn't meet the personal doctrinal whims of IMB trustees. The Board of Trustees of the IMB just might justify their actions by saying, "We are a higher authority than the local church and we don't have to accept the missionary's baptism if we don't want to accept it."

When those kinds of twisted, distorted views of authority are allowed to stand, then we are all in trouble as a Convention.

As much as I dislike saying it, it might take a hurricane for Southern Baptists to finally realize that the historic principle of Baptist autonomy is in danger. If demands for doctrinal conformity on matters non-essential to the gospel don't wake up the Southern Baptist congregations, maybe a decision to close a Southern Baptist seminary, bypassing the authority of the seminary's own board of trustees will wake us up.

Then, again, maybe not. If people don't care about the authority of a local church, the HIGHEST authority in our Convention, why should they ever care about an agency who has lesser historic Baptist authority? Or, even worse, it could be that Southern Baptists have no concept of local church authority and autonomy and how authority flows up, not down.

I sometimes wonder if modern Southern Baptists even care about historic Baptist principles such as local church authority and congregational autonomy. I won't, however, stop trying to make my fellow Southern Baptists care.

In His Grace,

Wade

The Labor and Toil Involved in Entering His Rest

This weekend is the symbolic close of the American summer with the observance of Labor Day on Monday. Labor Day was instituted by Congress in 1894 as a national holiday in celebration and appreciation of “the working (or laboring) citizens” of the United States. The Labor Day holiday, however, has given those of us who follow Christ an excellent object lesson regarding the hardest thing a laboring human being will ever be called upon to do.

Most of our lives are spent “laboring and toiling” and we are all taught from the earliest age that there is great profit in such labor. The same mentality permeates religion, and people everywhere, naturally bent toward toil and labor, are called upon by religious leaders to "labor and toil" for God, as seen in the prophet of Islam's own words . . .

"O mankind, Verily you are ever toiling on towards your Lord --painfully toiling-- and you shall meet Him." (Inshiqaq 84:6).

Or as in the Book of Moroni, a book of the Mormon religion, where it is written . . .

"For if we should cease to labor, we should be brought under condemnation; for we have a labor to perform whilst in this tabernacle of clay, that we may conquer the enemy of all righteousness . . ." (Book of Moroni 8:6).

Labor and Toil in the Heart from the Biblical Perspective

Israel's King David, however, under inspiration of the Spirit of God, calls the heart filled with "toil and labor" a wicked heart. David begins Psalm 10 by asking God "Why do you hide yourself in my time of trouble?" (v.1). David then points out that his trouble comes from the wicked who oppress him. He describes how the wicked man hunts down others for his advantage, and how he always seem to prosper materially. David then declares that there is no room for God in the heart of the wicked; he doesn't have time for Him (vs. 2-5). David concludes his description of a wicked man by saying his mouth is filled with "cursing and deceit and oppression" (v. 7). Then David makes a startling statement:

Under his tongue are mischief and iniquity" (Psalm 10:7 ESV).

The average reader of the Bible, particularly those of us cultured in Southern Baptist lingo, will read that verse and gloss right over "mischief and iniquity." We consider those words to be fancy Bible words for "sin." Yet, if all we think David is saying is that the wicked have hearts of sin we will miss the rich teaching of this text.

"A heart full of mischief and iniquity" is a very specific phrase in the original. The word "mischief" is the Hebrew word amel and has as its root the idea of labor and toil, or more precisely, the suffering that comes from it. It does not mean deviousness, or what we might call mischievousness, but rather it means "the dissatisfaction that comes in life because we work, toil, and labor, and never find real contentment." The same Hebrew word is used by Moses in Psalm 90:10, "The years of our life are seventy, or even by reason of strength eighty; yet their span is but toil and trouble (Heb: amel)."

The second descriptive word is "iniquity." It is the Hebrew word awen (pronounced and often transliterated aven). This word refers to the trouble caused by idolatry that arises from emptiness, as we human substitute things for God. When the city called Bethel (literally, "the house of God") became a place filled with idolaters, God commanded the prophet to change the city's name to Bethaven (Hosea 10:5). Bethaven has the Hebrew word aven as a suffix to describe the idolatry within the city. "Aven" in the heart represents a person who lives life working to find fulfillment or happiness in work, or material success, or fame, or achievement or anything else, and never finds real contentment. This is why the word is translated "vanity" in the King James Version, as in Solomon's heartfelt cry about life, "All is vanity." It is this toiling (amel), idolatrous (aven), dissatisfied heart that leads to a mouth full of cursing and deceit.

Therefore, when you hear cursing, or swearing, or taking God's name in vain; or when you hear people lying and catch people being deceptive; or when you listen as people "slice and dice" others with their cutting, biting words - all these kinds of speech are nothing but symptoms of an idolatrous heart. We would be wise not to focus on the treatment of the symptoms, but rather, show the cursed man the cure. Too often, we Southern Baptists focus on the syptoms of a wicked culture (homosexuality, adultery, sexual immorality, taking the Lord's name in vain), and never understand the root cause of such behavior, or show our culture the power of Jesus Christ to cure the heart.

"Under the Tongue" Is a Description of the Heart

When David writes about the wicked man saying, "under his tongue are mischief and iniquity," he is showing us the source of the problem. David does not say in his tongue. Nor does he say from his tongue; David says under his tongue. One commentator points out that this phrase "under his tongue" may be an allusion to certain vipers in Middle Eastern deserts that carry poison bags "under their tongues." Regardless, the phrase "under the tongue" is David's way of pointing to the heart of a man. As the old Puritan John Trapp put it, "Cursing men are cursed men." Just as the temperature taken "under the tongue" is an indication of the health of a human body, so the words that flow from a person's mouth is indicative of what it is like "under the tongue" or in that person's heart. When someone curses, lies, and speaks oppressively, it should cause everyone to look deeper.

The Soul That Finds Rest Has Found It In Christ

The Christian life is also a life of “labor” or “toil.” You may, however, be surprised in what way the Bible speaks of labor for the believer. Most Christians just assume that the Bible encourages us to “labor” for good, or to “work” by doing acts of service as in the old American hymn “Toiling On.” In reality, the Bible tells the believer to “labor” to enter His rest.

The heart that is struggling to find satisfaction in this life must come to the realization that there is ultimate and absolute emptiness in finding contentment in anything other than Jesus Christ. Jesus said, "Come unto me all ye that labor . . . and I will give you rest" (Matthew 11:28). The writer of Hebrews puts it like this, "If you will hear his voice, harden not your hearts . . . [lest you] not enter his rest" (Hebrews 3:8, 11a).

To enter Christ' rest involves a specific change within the heart. "For he that is entered into Christ’s rest , he also has ceased from his own works. Let us labor therefore to enter into His rest . . ." (Hebrews 4:11). Do you see the irony in that last verse? Let us "labor and toil" to enter His rest.
The hardest thing you will ever do as a believer in Christ (your labor), the most difficult chore you will ever take on as a follower of Christ (your toil), the toughest task every one of us will face as one who trusts in Jesus Christ (your work) is to learn how to enter His rest. You must work at it.

"Labor and toil" in the heart to gain the approval of God or man is not something the Bible commends. The only labor God accepts is that labor involved in throwing off EVERYTHING that does not lead your soul to rest in Christ. All other labor and toil is simply a search for satisfaction in life, and it is empty (vain) and leads to idolatry. When you miss out on the rest that comes from Christ, then you look to a spouse, or a boat, or a job, or a reputation, or a career, or money, or sensual pleasures, or a hobby, or religion, or prestige, or any thousands of other idols to take the place of Jesus Christ, who alone can give the soul rest.

This Labor Day weekend is a time to refocus. It is a time to labor to rest in Christ . I choose to trust nothing of my own actions for, promises to, or commitments toward God, and I believe that Christ either accomplished for me all I will ever eternally need, and He gives it to me freely, or I will never receive it at all. I am choosing this day to not sweat the spiritual stuff. I am resting in Him.

Every fiber of your naturally wicked heart will urge you to labor for God, and you are called upon by God to resist such temptation. Rest. Every brain cell that fires in your head will tell you that free grace cannot be true. God calls you to resist such thinking. Rest. Every worldly, man oriented religion will call you a heretic, and tell you will have to labor, fight and toil for God. God tells you to turn away from religion and enter a relationship with His Son. Rest.

Jesus was clear. "Come unto me all ye that are laboring and weighed down . . . and I will give you rest."

Toil this weekend against every demonic thought that calls upon you to bargain with God for His favor. Labor this weekend to suppress every thought that would lead you to proposition God ("I will do this for you God, if you will do this for me"), and simply rest that He will always do for you what is best. Work this weekend to throw off the urge to be religious by living as if God is dependent upon you for His favor to be displayed, and realize that He sings and dances with joy over the soul that rests in His Son, and showers unmerited grace upon all who have labored to TRUST HIM.

The priests in the Old Testament were commanded to wear linen. The Jewish forefathers passed down the oral tradition to their children that the priests were commanded by God to wear linen because there "was not to be a drop of sweat in the holy Presence of God."

This weekend, I don't plan to sweat. I've found my Rest.

In His Grace,


Wade