14 July 2023

Sanctification and Consistent Godly Living

I. Introduction

The doctrine of the Christian life is a huge subject. Every New Testament book has something distinctive to say on the matter, and almost every chapter has a bearing on the subject – and that is without venturing into the riches of the Old Testament. There are also numerous ways of organising the material, whether topically^[1] or by exegeting major passages.^[2] One simple way of dividing up the subject is into the What?, the How?, and the How Much? of the Christian life:

• What does the Christian life look like? What is its essence and character?
• How is growth in holiness to be pursued and promoted?
• How much progress should we look for? What should be our expectations in the matter of godly living, both for ourselves and for others?

Rather than attempt a comprehensive synthesis, the approach of this paper is more modest and practically focused. We will consider one topic under each of these three headings, to stimulate our consideration of the Christian life for our own spiritual good and that of our fellow church members.

II. What? A discipleship course for the 2020s

a. A thought experiment

Imagine a group of church leaders gathering to design a discipleship course to use in their respective churches.^[3] They are rightly concerned that such a course should equip their people to live well for the Lord in the specific time and culture in which we live, our complex world with its particular challenges. But what topics should they include? They start with a whiteboard brainstorming session…

“We live in a highly sexualised society, pornography is a huge issue; we need to give our people practical help in this whole area of sexual purity.”

“Anxiety is a big problem too, and mental health, especially with our younger people; social media just seems to stir things up.”

“I agree. And it’s not just anxiety. Society seems to be getting more and more polarised. Our people need help with navigating that. Some Christian blogs and tweets are pretty inflammatory.”

“Guys, I think you’re letting cultural issues shape our priorities; what about basic spiritual disciplines? Shouldn’t we start from there and work up?”

“I agree. I reckon what our folks need, more than anything, is help with prayer. If their prayer lives are right, surely the other things will fall into place?”

“But we mustn’t be pietistic! Activism is a bridge into our culture. What about covering how we should impact society?”

“I think the problem is society impacting us! Our marriages for example; some of them are pretty rocky; one of the members was just asking me what I thought of no-fault divorce.”

“I’ll bet it’s a money issue! Actually, we need to tackle that too. Materialism is such a blind spot. We live in an acquisitive society; are our members really any different from their non-Christian neighbours?”

“Some teaching on giving might help our church finances!”

“But we mustn’t be legalistic. We don’t want the ‘do this, don’t do that’ morality of a former generation. Some of our older members could do with teaching on not being judgmental!”

“I think that’s a caricature; or if there’s some truth in it, we’ve overreacted. We need to raise the bar!”

“Yes, but we can’t give people a list of rules. That’s Pharisaism! We need to tackle the whole gospel/law thing.”

“What they need are broad principles – something simple yet profound to help them organise their Christian living.”

“I still think Christians today are too lax; we need something on self-discipline.”

“Absolutely. And you know, the tide of hostility is rising; we need to prepare our people for persecution.”

Together, the leaders look up at the words on the whiteboard: “sexual purity… anxiety… polarised… hate speech… help with prayer… impact society… divorce… money… giving… legalism?… judging… raise the bar… law/gospel… broad principles… self-discipline… persecution”. Then someone pipes up:

“And it needs to be short. Our people aren’t really readers. We can’t just give them J. C. Ryle’s Holiness!”

Perhaps it is no surprise that discipleship courses are more scarce than evangelistic ones! Covering all that ground in short compass would seem to be mission impossible. Except that the world’s best discipleship course does just that.

b. Commending the ‘Jesus Seminar’

The single, simple, ‘big idea’ in this first section of the paper is that Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount is an ideal but underused framework for our discipling.

This section in Matthew’s gospel is exactly the place we might expect to find a fully-fledged framework for discipleship. All four Gospels begin by highlighting their major preoccupation with the identity of Jesus, and their backwards-looking concern to show continuity with God’s prior Old Testament revelation. In Matthew’s case, both things are evident in his opening verse: Jesus is identified as Messiah, and Matthew evokes the history of Israel, beginning with Abraham, and climaxing in David, before reaching its fundamental crisis point in the Exile. Having started here, Matthew’s gospel moves inexorably forward to its great climax (28:16-20), which is now forward-looking (“all the days to the end of the age”), but with the spotlight still firmly fixed on Jesus, finally revealed as “God the Son”. Indeed, Matthew 28:16-20 arguably refers to almost all the most important things we could ever consider: God as Trinity, the person of Christ (as Lord of all), the gospel events (pictured in baptism), the great task of the church, the great promise of Christ’s presence, and the great prospect of an “age to come”. But along with everything else, there is a profound description of the Christian life in just a few words: “…to obey everything I have commanded”. Thus, Matthew’s readers are encouraged to revisit the commands of Jesus in this gospel as the framework for discipleship through the whole church age. Furthermore, when it comes to the commands of Jesus, first and prominent is the great teaching block contained in chapters 5-7, specifically addressed to disciples (Matt 5:1).

c. Covering our bases

It is striking to consider how relevant Jesus’ teaching is to the very areas of discipleship raised by our thought experiment. Sexual purity is dealt with in 5:8, 27-30.^[4] Anxiety is addressed in 6:25-34.^[5] Instruction for navigating our increasingly polarised society is given in 5:9, 23f and 6:14f, whilst hate speech is referred to in 5:22. Practical help with both the motivation and content of prayer is provided in 6:5-13 and 7:7-11, with further spiritual disciplines of giving and fasting treated in 6:3f, 17f. The question of social activism and impacting society is covered in 5:13-16, marriage and divorce in 5:31f and materialism in 6:19-24. Meanwhile, 5:10-12, 5:43-47 and 7:6 prepare us for the growing hostility of Western society towards Biblical Christianity.^[6] On a more theological note, gospel/law issues are raised in 5:17-20.^[7] Simple yet profound organising principles for Christian living are given in 6:33 and 7:12,^[8] and the whole sermon can be read in under 15 minutes… but no one can complain that the bar is set too low (5:48)!

The suitability and applicability of Jesus’ words – to the very topics we need to cover in our discipleship – can be seen by considering, as an example, Jesus’ teaching on the topic of sexual immorality (5:8,27-30). Jesus’ words are immensely practical. “Are you tempted by pornography, or the billboard posters, or the unhelpfully dressed young people spilling out from the local college? Do you feel the urge to look at that? Then remind yourself of something that you want to see even more (5:8)”. “It’s not just a matter of seeing but also of touch (right eye and right hand), so be careful there too. Some people are ‘huggy’. That’s all well and good. But a lingering hug for other people’s spouses? Is that wise? Be wise. Touch can be arousing. There are plenty of people who need hugging, so this shouldn’t restrict you… unless you have less than pure preferences.”

Jesus’ language is deeply realistic: to renounce pornography, or to stop cohabiting, may feel like losing an eye or a hand, a part of you… but everything is at stake (the “Gehenna of fire” is a powerful incentive!). And Jesus’ description of heart lust (mental undressing) is vitally important not least to the debate concerning same-sex-attraction – it is not enough simply to refrain from gay practice – there is a whole inner world to be renounced and avoided.^[9] All of this is to say that Matthew 5-7 is exactly what we need in order to disciple people in our highly sexualised society.^[10] The same practical wisdom is on display in each of the other areas that Jesus covers.

d. Helping us with our blind spots

Thus far we’ve seen that Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount addresses many of the discipleship areas that we instinctively see as particularly pertinent to our age; Jesus speaks directly to the very things we want help with. But there is another, possibly even greater, benefit to recognising these chapters as an ideal framework for discipleship: it prompts us to ask, “What else does Jesus include, that we might be inclined to overlook?”. If these chapters provide such an admirable treatment of the things we instinctively recognise as important in discipling, what else is covered that we might leave out, but which is equally vital to the What? of the Christian life?

One thing that stands out from Matthew 7:15-23 is the need to equip disciples to watch out for religious charlatans. In past ages, a pastor may have been able to keep abreast of the vast majority of what his congregation was likely to be reading, but those days are long gone. People have immediate access to literally millions of books and sources of teaching. Thus, it is increasingly important to teach our people discernment as to what they encounter online. They need to beware of those who make the broad way safer, or the narrow road broader; those who value success over humility, or who feed on the sheep rather than feeding them. They need to judge people and ministries by their fruits, not by their slick and impressive self-presentation. A second but related point is the need to warn our people as to the nature and danger of fake holiness – whether that means lowering Christ’s standard to make it achievable (cf. 5:20,31,34-36), or ostentation in religion (6:1f,5,7f,16), or a critical and judgmental spirit (7:1-2), or hypocrisy (7:3-5). A further vital aspect of discipling is teaching people to live in the light of the ultimate future, with an eye to future reward (5:4-9; 6:1,4,6,18). This is a constant emphasis in the New Testament, but often seems muted in Western Christianity (perhaps due to our preoccupation or obsession with the present). In addition to these areas we might add: the need for an authentic response to the misery of our world (5:4,7); the vital importance of an appetite for godliness (5:5); the need to avoid both compromise and isolationism (because we will be prone to one or the other!) (5:13-16), and the need for honesty (5:33-37). Also, in an age of entitlement, we need to be discipled in a readiness to renounce our rights (5:38-42).

Put simply, the teaching in the Sermon on the Mount can be sorted into two categories: the areas that we know we need to include in our discipling, and the areas that we need to include in our discipling but haven’t realised yet!

We could further add that Jesus’ method of discipling is also (as we might expect) exemplary. Tim Keller talks about this in his excellent little book, How to Reach the West Again, under the title of countercultural catechesis.^[11] Repeatedly in Matthew 5 we encounter the words “You have heard it said… but I say to you…”. Jesus was taking the slogans of his age and critiquing them, whether adding depth or repudiating them. In a similar manner, we need to think carefully through the slogans of our age: “You have heard it said ‘follow your heart’ but I say to you that the whole of human history is a grim record of human beings following their hearts: ruin and misery mark their ways; You have heard it said ‘Be true to yourself!’, but just who are the abusers and despots of this age being true to, if not themselves?”.

e. A question of character

Having identified Matthew 5-7 as not only an excellent discipling resource for the things we want to talk about but also a way of exposing our discipleship blind spots, it is instructive to see where Jesus starts – namely, with the Beatitudes.

Not only are the Beatitudes a striking and memorable opening; but they are also, primarily, a matter of character. Whilst thinking about this paper, I had a whiteboard session, similar to the one envisaged earlier, asking church members to suggest topics for an up-to-date discipleship course. Quite a number of their suggestions dovetailed with my earlier illustration. But strikingly, no one mentioned character. I wonder whether, and how soon, it would be mentioned if you tried the same experiment in your church, or local fraternal? Yet Jesus starts here. That should give us pause for thought in our discipling. Character is vital. But what sort of character traits does Jesus have in mind? Clearly the Beatitudes are not to be seen as entry requirements (“live like this and you will be eligible to join”), but rather as a portrait of kingdom citizens (“this is how citizens live; live like this because you’re in the kingdom”). These qualities presuppose that God is at work – cleansing and renewing, removing hearts of stone and replacing them with hearts of flesh, writing his law on human hearts – because that is exactly what would happen when the kingdom came (Jer 31; Eze 36).

So far, so good. But the difficulty comes when we try to closely define what Jesus means by each of these characteristics, particularly the first four (I think the later Beatitudes are easier to define and describe). What exactly is it to be poor in spirit? What is being mourned over? What is meekness? What is this righteousness which is so earnestly desired? Many commentators take the line that this is the reaction of a sinner confronted with God’s holiness, and his own sinfulness, and perhaps the exacting and demanding standard which Jesus lays down in the sermon.^[12] Faced with this unscalable cliff, the appropriate reaction is what Don Carson calls “personal acknowledgement of spiritual bankruptcy … the deepest form of repentance … a full, honest, factual, conscious and conscientious recognition before God of personal moral unworth”.^[13] Sinclair Ferguson speaks of being “emptied of self-importance, self-confidence, self-righteousness”.^[14] Martyn Lloyd-Jones refers to Philippians 3: there can be no reliance upon family background, nationality, temperament, natural position in life, wealth, education, personality, intelligence, general or special ability, morality, conduct or good behaviour.^[15] So Carson writes: “At the very outset of the Sermon on the Mount we learn that we do not have the spiritual resources to put any of the Sermon’s precepts into practice”.^[16]

According to this schema, a sort of gospel progression can be traced in the early Beatitudes. Firstly, “poverty of spirit” is the attitude of a sinner confronted with the seriousness of his sinfulness and his inability to earn or even contribute to salvation. It is the “coming to one’s senses” of Luke 15:17, the empty-handedness of faith. This then leads to “mourning” which is seen as “mourning over personal sin”, the repentance which is a prerequisite to entering the kingdom (Matt 4:17). In like manner, “hungering and thirsting for righteousness” is nothing short of that desire for justification, the Father’s declaration that we are perfectly righteous in God’s sight on the basis of Christ’s saving merits, received by faith. Being “merciful” then follows on naturally: we who have received gospel mercy should be quick to show it.^[17]

This is certainly a widespread and attractive suggestion for understanding the Beatitudes, which I’m rather nervous to question. After all, it is held by wise and godly commentators whose judgments I deeply respect. And of course, these truths are right and proper, and abundantly confirmed by other New Testament teaching. But might we be so concerned to synthesise this sermon with our overall gospel understanding that we impose a foreign grid? Very tentatively, I want to suggest a different (though not contradictory) approach, at least for consideration. This approach was first suggested to me by a study of the word “meek” in the third Beatitude, which doesn’t fit so self-evidently into the gospel progression schema. The Greek word for meek (práos) occurs three further times in the New Testament, two of which are in Matthew:

Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle (práos) and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. (Matthew 11:29)

Say to the daughter of Zion, “Behold, your king is coming to you, humble (práos), and mounted on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.” (Matthew 21:5)

In both these instances the word refers to Jesus himself. What if Matthew 5:5 also refers to Jesus? More broadly, might it be that each of the Beatitudes is perfectly exemplified by the one who is preaching the sermon? It certainly seems intrinsically reasonable. After all, disciples are followers of Jesus (Matt 4:19f; 16:24; 19:21,27) and following is not merely adherence to his teaching but imitation (1 John 2:6, Phil 2:5, 1 Pet 2:21). God’s intention is to conform us to his Son’s image (Rom 8:29, see 2 Cor 3:18).

Many of the Beatitudes are self-evidently exemplified by Jesus. We’ve already considered meekness, which Jesus explicitly attributes to himself (Matt 11:29).^[18] Such meekness is powerfully on display in the gentleness of his interactions (Mark 5:34,41) and his patience with his dull disciples. The same is true of mercy: “mercy relieves the consequences of sin in the lives of others (both sinners and those sinned against)”.^[19] It is “…getting down on your hands and knees and doing what you can to restore dignity to someone whose life has been broken by sin”^[20] (like the Good Samaritan, stopping for the sake of the bruised and broken man). Once again, how perfectly this describes our saviour (Mark 5:19, 10:47f)! What about heart purity? Jesus of all people was “holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners” (Heb 7:26).^[21] As for “peacemaker”, it perfectly sums up his whole mission (Eph 2:14). “Suffering persecution” is a similarly accurate description, given that Jesus was reviled as in league with the devil, slandered as inciting political revolt, mocked, and hated. This takes us back to the earlier Beatitudes: The one who said “blessed are those who mourn” was aptly described by Isaiah as “a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief” (53:3) – poignantly displayed in his tears over Jerusalem. Similarly, Christ was one who hungered and thirsted for righteousness: nothing was more important to him than to see God’s will done, both in his own life and the life of others (John 4:34). Indeed, the only earlier reference to righteousness in Matthew’s gospel (3:15) fits this paradigm. Thus, seven of the eight Beatitudes can easily and naturally refer to Christ, and supremely to him. But what about the first item, “poverty of spirit”?

f. Poverty of spirit

In the Old Testament, “poor” seems almost a technical term for those who, in their need, are cast upon God. Time and again “poor” is juxtaposed with trust:^[22]

This poor man cried, and the Lord heard him and saved him out of all his troubles. (Psalm 34:6)

As for me, I am poor and needy, but the Lord takes thought for me. You are my help and my deliverer; do not delay, O my God! (Psalm 40:17)

When the humble see it they will be glad; you who seek God, let your hearts revive. For the Lord hears the needy and does not despise his own people who are prisoners. (Psalm 69:32-33)

For the Lord takes pleasure in his people; he adorns the humble with salvation. (Psalm 149:4)

The meek shall obtain fresh joy in the Lord, and the poor among mankind shall exult in the Holy One of Israel. (Isaiah 29:19)

When the poor and needy seek water, and there is none, and their tongue is parched with thirst, I the Lord will answer them; I the God of Israel will not forsake them. (Isaiah 41:17)

For thus says the One who is high and lifted up, who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy: “I dwell in the high and holy place, and also with him who is of a contrite and lowly spirit, to revive the spirit of the lowly, and to revive the heart of the contrite. (Isaiah 57:15)

But this is the one to whom I will look: he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at my word. (Isaiah 66:2)

But I will leave in your midst a people humble and lowly. They shall seek refuge in the name of the Lord. (Zephaniah 3:12)

Furthermore, “poverty of spirit” is contrasted with pride in the book of Proverbs:

It is better to be of a lowly spirit with the poor than to divide the spoil with the proud. (Proverbs 16:19)

One’s pride will bring him low, but he who is lowly in spirit will obtain honour. (Proverbs 29:23)

In the light of this Old Testament background, we can reasonably construe ”poverty of spirit” as a combination of faith and humility, which is then nowhere better exemplified than in the Saviour. In this case “poor in spirit” would be broadly synonymous with “lowly in heart”, the very quality that Jesus pairs with meekness in Matthew 11:29.^[23] If all this is so, then the Beatitudes are primarily a description of that character perfectly exemplified in Christ, and thus not intrinsically tied to personal sinfulness. Nevertheless, they are clearly suitable for sinners, whose humility factors in their moral failure and whose mourning includes contrition. This would make the Beatitudes a perfect portrait of Christ, yet painted in such a way as to beckon, rather than repel, sinners.

The goal of this extended digression on the Beatitudes, and particularly on “poverty of spirit” as the trusting humility exemplified by Christ, is to draw out three basic points:

Christ prioritises character

In terms of character, Christ prioritises humility, and

Christ is the great exemplar of all these character traits.

If Christ’s very first discipleship topic is “Christlike character”, of which the very first trait is humility, we might profitably ask whether our discipling starts there, and if so, why not?^[24] The great goal for ourselves and those we serve should be Christlikeness. God’s primary concern is for our character and attitudes, including those “religious affections” to which Jonathan Edwards turns his attention.^[25] And an early focus on character is very economic, seeing that godly actions will follow if our character is right. Focusing on character is also an excellent opportunity to address the misconception that Christianity is defined by what you do. “Poor in spirit” is not something you do, but something you are. Perhaps if this focus on humility as the bedrock of discipleship had been more to the fore, we would have avoided some of the scandals that have troubled the Christian church in recent years.

Humility, the Beatitudes, and indeed Matthew 5-7 could detain us for far longer, but we must turn now to the second section of this paper.

III. How? Jerusalem church priorities

a. ‘Disciple making’ or ‘Building the Church’?

Having considered the What? of holiness, we turn in this second section to the How? How is growth in holiness to be pursued and promoted? Once again, this section does not attempt to provide an exhaustive synthesis or a ground-breaking insight. Instead, the goal is an easy-to-remember rule of thumb, as we seek to live consistent Christian lives and to nurture others to do the same.

Returning to the end of Matthew’s Gospel, we see that Jesus sends out his disciples to “make disciples”: this is to be their great mission, and ours, to the end of the age (Matt 28:19). Earlier in the gospel, however, Jesus describes his agenda for this present age in terms of what he himself will do, namely build his indomitable church (Matt 16:18). Juxtaposing these two descriptions, we see that ‘disciple making’ and ‘church growth’ are two sides of the same coin: the church grows as disciples are made, and disciple-making is intrinsically tied to church.

The book of Acts describes the first generation of this ‘disciple-making / church-building’ activity. Though we might rightly affirm that Acts is ‘descriptive’ rather than ‘prescriptive’, we should also remember that it describes what Jesus himself continued to do and teach (Acts 1:1). Therefore, Acts is, in some senses, normative. In particular, the description in Acts 2 of the first church is very instructive for us. The church’s commitments are memorably summed up towards the end of the chapter: “…they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers” (Acts 2:42). This was the atmosphere of the first (and arguably archetypal) local church, and it was in this atmosphere that the first disciples made disciples. Thus the single, simple, ‘big idea’ in this second section of my paper is that these four qualities in Acts 2:42 provide an admirable ‘grid’ when it comes to the ‘How?’ of holiness.

b. Head first

The first thing that characterised the Jerusalem church was its commitment to the apostles’ teaching. This in turn reminds us of the centrality of teaching in the matter of promoting holiness.

We’ve already seen this emphasis in Jesus’ ultra-compact description of the Christian life: “teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:20, NIV). Indeed, the first section in this paper has been entirely devoted to what Jesus “taught” (Matt 5:2). This emphasis is also seen in Jesus’ prayer that his people be “sanctified by the truth” (John 17:17).

Paul’s practice also shows the importance of teaching for sanctification. In his great letter to the Romans, Paul begins his detailed section on ‘Christian Living’ with a reference to discerning God’s will, and the “renewal of your mind” (Rom 12:2). Similarly, in Ephesians 4, he describes ungodly Gentile behaviour as springing from “the futility of their minds”, their darkened understanding, and their ignorance (4:17f). By contrast, Christians “learn Christ”, they are taught the truth in him, and they have been renewed in the spirit of their minds. Having laid this foundation – that holiness is ‘head first’ – Paul then goes on to teach what it looks like in practice: we are to replace lies with truth, and theft with hard work and generosity; corrupt talk must be replaced with edifying conversation, and malice with kindness. All this is a matter of instruction.

Peter displays the same emphasis in his first letter: “Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation” (1 Pet 2:2). The immediate context makes it very clear that this milk is none other than “the living and abiding word of God” (1:23).

The practical outworking of all this is that we must teach holiness: both the necessity for it (Heb 12:14b) and its essential character and practical expression. In doing so we must walk a middle path between a neo-Pharisaism which ‘clarifies’ and defines every aspect of obedience with an ever-increasing canon of rules, and a vague generality which never wrestles with the actual, nitty-gritty expressions of holiness in everyday life. As we saw in the first section, the Sermon on the Mount is an excellent example of such teaching, as is Romans 12-13, Ephesians 4-5 and many other passages.

At this point it might be helpful to stop and ask: am I calling the people in my congregation to be holy? Am I teaching them what holiness looks like, at a practical level, in their everyday lives? Or is working this out largely “left as an exercise for the reader”? If we are not teaching holiness, we cannot expect our people to be living it.

c. Growing together

Having emphasised the importance of teaching holiness, we need to recognise that this is only the first step. The second thing that characterised the Jerusalem church was their commitment to fellowship, namely partnership and ‘shared community life’.

The fact of the matter is that holiness is not something to be developed in splendid isolation but as part of a local church.^[26] For one thing, much of Christian living is relational. It is a perennial temptation and beguiling falsehood to define holiness as a purely individual thing: “I could be a much holier person if only I didn’t spend so much time with other people!”. But so many of the instructions for godly living are all about relating to others, not least Jesus’ great summary: “do to others as you would have them do to you” (Matt 7:12). Likewise, Paul’s instruction in Ephesians 4:17ff is all about how you interact with other people. Thus, the What? of holiness is clearly and profoundly relational. But so is the How?. Holiness is not only ‘taught’ but ‘caught’. Just as we learn to speak by listening to others, so our ‘conversation’ (in the KJV ‘way of life’ sense of the word) is also learned by seeing and imitating others.

Nowhere is the importance of example in the business of Christian living more prominent than in Paul’s letter to the Philippians. Three times he makes this point explicitly:

“Join with others in following my example” (3:17a)

“Take note of those who live according to the pattern we gave you” (3:17b)

“Whatever you have… seen in me – put it into practice” (4:9)

In the light of these verses, our eyes are opened to see how much of the letter is Paul’s example to the Philippian Christians: how to cope with hardship and face an uncertain future (1:12-26); rejoicing amidst suffering (2:14-18: “I am… So you too should…”); renouncing ‘privileges’ and straining towards the goal (3:3-16). In Chapter 2, Paul presents three further examples: Timothy, with his unique concern for the interests of others and of Christ (2:19-24), Epaphroditus, who risked everything to carry out his gospel service (2:25-30), and above all, the Lord Jesus, who put the interests of others above his own (2:4ff).

Just as a picture may be worth a thousand words, so a consistent example of godliness may be worth a multitude of sermons on godliness. This has three immediate applications:

Firstly, we must not expect our people to grow in holiness if their only exposure to the Christian community is an hour or so on Sunday mornings. We need to create contexts in which Christians spend time together, by opening our homes, sharing our lives, and working, resting and playing together.

Secondly, we must aspire and plan to spend time with those people whose Christian life is exemplary, who carry about with them the fragrance of Christ. Also, we must teach others to have the same ambition: to identify and spend time with godly Christians and thus to learn godliness.

Thirdly, we need to make sure that our own lives are exemplary. Otherwise, we will find that all our teaching on sanctification will produce little fruit.

d. It’s all about the cross

So far we have considered that holiness is taught, but also caught. We must be committed to clear, detailed instruction on holiness, but also to the community life where young Christians can watch and learn from older, mature saints. These two elements correspond to the Jerusalem church’s devotion to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship. The third thing that characterised the Jerusalem church was the centrality of the cross, expressed in their devotion to “the Breaking of Bread” which I take as a reference to the Lord’s Supper.

1. What fuels holy living?

Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God – this is your true and proper worship. (Rom 12:1 NIV, emphasis added).

It is a sight of God’s mercy, supremely revealed at the cross, which prompts the costly holiness to which God calls all of his people. Similarly, when Paul speaks of living by faith in the Son of God, it is particularly with respect to him as the one “who loved me and gave himself for me” (Gal 2:21). In fact, it is not only individual texts but the very structure of a number of Paul’s epistles that make this point: he first expounds gospel realities (Rom 1-11, Eph 1-3, Gal 3-4, Col 1-2) then addresses practical godliness (Rom 12ff, Eph 4ff, Gal 5f, Col 3f). People cannot live on a diet of challenge (this is an easy mistake for young preachers to make). Christians will not grow in holiness if they are merely instructed in holiness; they need to be sustained by a sight of Christ and his saving love.

At this point we see the value of taking Acts 2:42 as a suggestive paradigm for our pursuit and promotion of holiness. On the one hand, some people’s ‘recipe for holiness’ seems to consist almost entirely in focusing on the grace of God in the saving work of Christ.^[27] This overlooks the actual practice in the New Testament epistles of clearly describing and exhorting believers to godliness (the letter of 1 Peter has over 40 imperatives; Romans 12 has a similar number). On the other hand, the teaching and even modelling of holiness is not enough: if believers are to pursue a growth in godliness that doesn’t harden into self-righteousness or dissipate into a vague ‘niceness’, they must be absolutely gripped by the grace of God in the gospel, and the self-giving love of Christ demonstrated at the cross. Thus Frances Havergal’s hymn provides an excellent paradigm:

Thy life was given for me
Thy blood, O Lord, was shed,
that I might ransomed be
and quickened from the dead:
Thy life was given for me
what have I given for thee?

e. God must do it!

This second section of the paper has suggested that the atmosphere of the early church, captured in Acts 2:42, provides an admirable framework for the pursuit and promotion of holiness. Thus we have seen that holiness must be ‘taught’, ‘caught’ and ‘fuelled’. But there is a fourth and final characteristic of the church that has a profound bearing on the How? of holiness: “they devoted themselves… to the prayers”.

Prayers are first and foremost an expression of dependence on God. Just as ‘thunder is what lightning sounds like’ so ‘prayer is what faith sounds like’. We pray because ‘we cannot’, but ‘God can’. Relating this to the matter of Christian living, we are reminded that holiness is God’s work in us, and no amount of teaching, modelling, or even focus on the cross can replace this element and emphasis.

Our utter dependence on God in the matter of sanctification^[28] is made clear in a number of places. Paul’s wish for the Thessalonians is that God himself would sanctify them completely (1 Thess 5:23). Just as significant are Paul’s various prayers for the churches to whom he writes.

And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment, so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God. (Phil 1:9-11)

And so, from the day we heard, we have not ceased to pray for you, asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, so as to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him: bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God; being strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might, for all endurance and patience with joy; giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light. He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. (Col 1:9-14)

It is easy (and profitable) to preach these passages as a template for godliness.^{[29], [30]} But we must never forget that Paul is recounting his prayers for the Christians. Yes, these prayers provide profound instruction as to the shape of the Christian life. But also, such Christian lives will only be lived if God enables them, hence Paul’s prayer. The same can be said of Jesus’ words in John 17:17: “Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth”. If all we take away from this verse is that “truth is the means of sanctification”, we have forgotten that it is a prayer: ultimately God is the ‘means’ of sanctification. It is God who sanctifies, whether by his word, or by trial (Heb 12:10), and we must never forget it.

Practically speaking, this final emphasis raises a number of searching questions:

• Do we really believe that, unless God enables it, we are utterly unable to live those godly lives which are absolutely necessary?
• Are we praying explicitly, regularly and fervently for our own growth in holiness?
• Are we praying similarly for the godliness of our fellow brothers and sisters? Is this a theme in our corporate prayers?

IV. How much? What ‘growing in holiness’ means

a. Sanctification or consistent godly living?

The goal of this paper has been to provide practical stimulus as we consider the huge topic of sanctification. Thus far we have looked at the What? and the How? of sanctification, and we have considered how Matthew 5-7 and Acts 2:42 might inform the content and balance of our discipling. In this final section, we turn to the question of How much?, namely, what should our expectations be?

The title I was given for this paper was ‘Sanctification and Consistent Godly Living’. Ironically, the two halves of this title capture two competing (or complementary?) perspectives on the Christian life. Whereas ‘Sanctification’ suggests a process of increasing in holiness, ‘Consistent Godly Living’ suggests a settled state. Indeed, the various theological paradigms of the Christian life fit broadly into one of two families corresponding to these two halves of the title. A representative of the Reformed approach would be Wayne Grudem, who defines sanctification as “a progressive work of God and man that makes us more and more free from sin and like Christ in our actual lives”.^[31] On the other hand, there are the various ‘holiness theologies’ that describe a ‘normal’ Christian state of settled godliness, to which the newest Christian may aspire, and which they can achieve. In some of these theologies, being ‘sanctified’ may be used to describe the attainment of that state of ‘consistent godly living’.

My own understanding of Scripture and experience inclines me towards the Reformed approach of seeing sanctification as the lifelong process of growth in holiness. Nevertheless, I want in this third and final section to raise a number of qualifications to guard against a simplistic version of this paradigm, and the wrong implications which could easily be drawn. In particular, I want to question the approach which simply views the Christian life as ‘a lifelong process of sinning less’ and uses that as an organising framework.

b. Radical obedience from day one

The first thing we need to stress is that Jesus calls for radical obedience from day one. In Mark 8:34, Jesus teaches both the crowds and his disciples that if anyone wants to be his disciple then they must deny themselves, take up their cross and follow him. This sits rather awkwardly with a description of the Christian life in which a person becomes more holy bit by bit over a whole lifetime. In this case, the impression is easily (though unintentionally) given that “new Christians will necessarily sin ‘quite a lot’” (after all, if they didn’t, how could they possibly be sinning less and less every day and month and year and decade for the rest of their life?). By contrast, Jesus called for a zero-tolerance approach to sin from the outset.

This is not to say that new Christians (or indeed any Christians) will live perfectly. After all, Jesus gave us a prayer in which we pray for forgiveness with the same regularity as we pray for daily bread (Matt 6:12,11). Thus, we expect that, at the end of each day, there will be things which we regret and must confess. We never get to a point where we can go no further; we never ‘arrive’ (Phil 3:9-14; Job 42:6). Nevertheless, the newest Christians have everything they need for life and godliness (2 Pet 1:3) from day one. We must aim each day (and teach new converts to aim each day) to live in full obedience to all that Jesus commanded (Matt 28:19), and our theological paradigm of the Christian life must not undermine that call and expectation. Can we really say that the Daniel of chapter 6 was self-evidently holier than the Daniel of chapter 1? Rather, we see a consistent godliness displaying itself both in teenage years and in old age. Personally, I wonder whether I am bolder now in my witness than as a teenager on Beach Mission thirty years ago.

c. Changing seasons

There is a second problem with a certain sort of gradual sanctification model. Sometimes our description of the Christian life in terms of growth fails to come to terms with the fact that life itself is full of changes. The impression is given that each year the Christian faces the same or similar challenges, and (if she is growing in grace), copes with them a bit better each year. But the reality is rather different.

Consider a young person who converted in Freshers’ Week at university. They need to learn what it means to be a Christian student. Hopefully, they’ll be a better Christian in their third year than they were in their first year: after all, they’re growing in grace. But then their environment changes, they must learn how to be an unemployed Christian, then a Christian in their first job. They may need to learn about being a Christian newlywed, or a Christian navigating singleness as the years pass. The challenges of being a Christian mum change as children grow up from babies to toddlers to juniors then teens.

The fact is: it is very hard to compare the different stages of life in terms of growth on one axis: “I thought I was a thoughtful person till I got married”, “I thought I was a patient person till I had kids… or struggled to have them”. Retirement and old age bring their own challenges. So much of ‘living the Christian life’ is learning to live Christianly in each new life situation. But when we talk about ‘growth’, it tends to assume something fixed that we can measure against – life remains the same, and we get ‘better’ at living it as time passes. In this model, ‘sanctification’ is rather like a child with a wall chart whose height is marked with a line and a date at various intervals, and who is thus seen to be growing – sometimes a little, sometimes in spurts – as the months and years pass. But the reality is, life keeps changing: it’s more like marking the child’s height on a young sapling which is itself growing and changing as time goes by!

Rather than thinking of growth over a lifetime, it may be more helpful to think about particular stages in life. For example, a Christian teenager should aim to be as holy as a teen can be, knowing that it is entirely possible to be a godly teen. (Do we actually believe that? If not, is it any surprise that we are not growing godly teens?) You only get seven years to master being a Christian teen! You only get one shot at trusting God on your first day at work (though there will be other new beginnings). The great goal is to learn what it means to live a Lord-worthy, Lord-pleasing life in every new situation (Col 1:12). Perhaps sanctification is as much about learning to be holy in each new circumstance as it is about becoming more holy in a fixed environment. This may help shed light on the struggles that Christians face in later years. A Christian who has lived well over a lifetime may struggle in retirement as they face a small handful of big challenges. Yes, they will draw on lessons learned over many years, but they may be facing entirely new trials: immobility, inability to concentrate, the challenge of submitting to church leaders who are younger than them!, etc… There are specific temptations of youth and of old age, and we need to discuss them, prepare for them, and factor them into our theology of sanctification.

d. What about growth?

Hopefully, by this point, you are itching to push back. After all, the New Testament does speak a lot about growth, not just about changing circumstances. That is absolutely true. But we need to remember that not all growth is growth in holiness (in the sense of ‘sinning less’). This becomes immediately clear when we consider the Lord Jesus himself. We are explicitly told in Luke 2:52 that “Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man”. Clearly Jesus grew, and not just physically, intellectually and socially, but (in some sense) spiritually: “he grew … in favour with God”. At the same time, we know that this growth was not a matter of “sinning less” since Jesus was sinless for his whole life (Heb 4:15; 7:27). We should also add Hebrews 5:8f into the mix, where we are told that Jesus “learned obedience from what he suffered” and was “made perfect”. Yet Jesus was already morally perfect. This process of perfecting was not in terms of moral character, but in maturity and ‘fittedness to the task’.

Take the example we had earlier of the Christian teen who aspires to be as holy as a teen can be. Does that mean they have now done most of their growing? Absolutely not. There will be plenty of opportunities for growth in knowledge and wisdom, and a deepening understanding of scripture, the world, and how the former applies to the latter. The fact that they don’t know these things as a child is not a deficiency, yet their growth in these areas is good. Similarly, they may grow in gifting. As time passes, both their ability and their responsibility increase. They are no longer simply learning, but also teaching (in whatever sphere) (Heb 5:12).

A biblical example here is Paul’s exhortation in 1 Thessalonians 4:

As for other matters, brothers and sisters, we instructed you how to live in order to please God, as in fact you are living. Now we ask you and urge you in the Lord Jesus to do this more and more. (4:1)

Now about your love for one another we do not need to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love each other. And in fact, you do love all of God’s family throughout Macedonia. Yet we urge you, brothers and sisters, to do so more and more. (4:9-10)

In neither case is Paul criticising their current behaviour – quite the opposite! – but he sees potential for growth. Christian growth of this sort is more like a balloon than a bottle. If you can put more water in a bottle, it means that it wasn’t full before (thus growth in holiness always implies previous deficiency). But you can put more air in a full balloon (thus growth in gifting or love may simply be an increased capacity rather than a prior deficiency).

All of this is to say that, though growth in holiness is a vitally important part of the Christian life, it doesn’t sum up or exhaust what it means for Christians to grow. A relatively young Christian might attain a consistently godly life yet still pursue a lifetime of growth. We need to remember that there are two sorts of immaturity: natural and culpable. Culpable immaturity is when you should be mature but aren’t (Heb 5:12); natural immaturity is simply the reality that when you are a child you speak, think and reason like a child (1 Cor 13:11). We should aim for holiness at all stages, but maturity will necessarily require time and experience.

e. Hang on in there!

I remember, during my theological training, attending a course on preaching. The lecturer announced that “Preaching is about one thing, and one thing only: Change!”. Despite his being perhaps my all-time favourite preacher, on this occasion I had to disagree. Preaching often aims at change, but sometimes it simply reassures the faithful to keep doing what they are already doing. In the same way, we should not narrowly characterise the Christian life in terms of sanctification, growth and progress, as if these are ‘the be all and end all’. Sometimes the great thing is simply to hold on.

Certainly, progress is a key element in the New Testament portrayal of the Christian life: healthy Christians grow (2 Thess 1:3); lack of growth is unhealthy (Heb 5:12); we pray that Christians would grow in love (Phil 1:9-11; 1 Thess 3:12), grace (2 Pet 3:18) and the knowledge of God (Col 1:10). Virtues should be stockpiled! (2 Pet 1:5-8); the new self is being renewed (Col 3:10), we are to “be ‘being transformed’” (Rom 12:2). But sometimes the great call of Scripture is for ‘mere perseverance’ rather than ‘more progress’:

Therefore put on the full armour of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. (Eph 6:13)

…the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. (Matt 24:13)

For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised. (Heb 10:36)

Sometimes the reality is that “you need to obey today, just as you obeyed yesterday” rather than “you need to sin less today than you did yesterday”. Sometimes the need is not to learn more, but simply to be reminded of what we already know. Indeed, our need to keep being reminded is not a deficiency, any more than our need to keep eating is a deficiency: it is simply part of the humbling reality of our experience. What we need is “a long obedience in the same direction”.^[32] We need to do today what God commands: aiming to glorify and please him; seeking the good of others (Christians and non-Christians); loving others today. We may need to fight the same fight each day (just as one key reason for reading Scripture is to be fed today, not merely to develop overall).

A minister friend of mine once wrote to me: “It’s noticeable in Revelation 2 and 3… that the two main commands that Christ gives to his churches are, ‘Repent’ and ‘Hold fast’. In other words, get back on track if you’ve gone off it and then stick to it.” This insight needs to be factored into our understanding of the Christian life, particularly those of us who hold to a Reformed position of gradual sanctification. Every persevering Christian is a testimony to God’s saving grace. Some dear saints can be discouraged by a (perceived) lack of personal growth when they should be encouraged by the evident grace of perseverance. To ‘keep going’ is no small thing, and if we define the Christian life exclusively in terms of growth we are likely to miss or downplay that encouraging truth.

f. More models

Earlier we identified two basic sanctification models: gradual growth over a lifetime, and a settled state of godliness. Whichever approach we adopt, Scripture commends other models from nature and experience that may help us as we think about the Christian life.

1) Growing up

Scripture uses the analogy of a growing person with respect to both corporate growth (Eph 4:11-16) and individual growth (1 Pet 2:2). One aspect of human growth is that there is a more marked growth during childhood, whereas adulthood is a time of maturity. In a similar vein, we might expect a new Christian, particularly from an unchurched or untaught background, to be unaware of many of God’s basic requirements for holy living, and so to learn and implement these things over a period of at least some time. Nevertheless, the time comes when there is something of a shift in focus from growing to being. Thus a child eats in order both to live and to grow taller, but at a certain point, the upward growth stops. The “milk/meat” terminology in Hebrews 5 likewise suggests a move from immaturity to settled maturity. Should we distinguish between sanctification and perseverance as ongoing works of God enabling both growth and life, but with a shifting balance as a person grows to maturity? In this respect sanctification would then be analogous to learning: though we must always be ready to stretch (or even replace) our systems, the reality is that, as we mature, our new insights tend to slot into an existing settled understanding. I remember a young man in my previous church describing his early experience of listening to sermons as “like living in a greenhouse” – he was learning so many new things. As time passed, he continued to benefit, but there was a shifting balance from learning to serving.

2) Bearing fruit

Another fruitful biblical image is that of a fruit-bearing tree. Initially, there is evident and obvious ‘growth’ in height, but for a mature tree, the evidence of ‘growth’ is annual fruitfulness. Thus Paul can write to young Timothy: “Be diligent in these matters; give yourself wholly to them, so that everyone may see your progress” (1 Tim 4:15) whereas for an older worker, it may not be progress so much as ripe fruitfulness that is on display.

3) Growing old together

Another helpful analogy is that of a developing relationship, and in particular a human marriage. (This metaphor is used for Christ and the whole church, Ephesians 5, but it may also prove helpful for thinking about individual growth). In a marriage there is not just growth but change: the buzz and anticipation of courtship is replaced with a deepening love. Likewise, in sanctification there may be an early ardour, not lost, but replaced by a settled and deepening understanding, and the accumulation of mutual experience. The challenge is to ensure that this is not simply a cooling off from the commendable zeal of earlier days (cf. Heb 10:32-34).

g. Why so different?

As we start to draw this third section to a close, it is worth reflecting again that Christians come to very different conclusions when it comes to their expectations of the degree of growth in holiness in themselves and others. At one end of the spectrum is ‘Christian perfectionism’, for example, the Wesleyan teaching of Perfect Love. This optimism is also seen in other strands of holiness teaching. We might think of the last words of Maria Taylor, wife of Hudson Taylor, and missionary to China. On her deathbed, Maria is reported to have said that not a cloud had come between her soul and the Saviour for the past ten years.^[33] At the other end of the spectrum is a deeply pessimistic account of attainable progress, where sanctification is seen as a lifelong struggle, with frequent setbacks.^[34] Why is it that Christians, reading the same Bible, and equally concerned to pursue holiness, have come to such different conclusions? What are we to make of (what feels like) a great gulf between our own experience and the experience (as far as we can ascertain it) of others in Scripture, church history and today? Was grace given to people because of the particular challenges they faced, or were the challenges given (as in the case of Job) because they already had the grace to respond well?

Some of the differences in expectations may come down to a difference in terminology. For example, those at the optimistic end may defend their view by saying that what they have in mind is an absence of conscious, volitional sin, whereas those at the pessimistic end want to stress that unintentional sins and sins of omission are still sins. Nevertheless, even when allowances are made for different terminology, a significant difference remains in the positions held.

To what degree might differences in temperament affect a person’s expectations regarding sanctification? Will a ‘glass-half-empty person’ be drawn to emphasise the ongoing struggle and remaining sin, whilst a ‘glass-half-full person’ overstate the progress made? The observation that “I’m not what I one day will be, but nor am I what I once was” may be simple, but there is a great deal of wisdom in its balance. Without papering over the significant differences in theologies, it is worth acknowledging the danger on both sides: “You’re so naïve about your capacity to sin!” “You’re so introspective and self-absorbed when you should be focusing on Christ!”. Just as God has gifted us differently, so God has ‘temperamented’ us differently too, and we need each other if we are to think right about the Christian life in general, and our own attainments in particular.

Furthermore, we need to be careful not to confuse holiness with spiritual experience. It may be that our actual experience is tied to the wider situation that God sovereignly grants us to live in. Those who are caught up in revival may speak of a felt sense of God that others might rarely experience. It is God’s sovereign right to dispense such circumstances and experiences as he chooses, but we are all reassured that we have what we need for life and godliness, whatever our felt experience.

There may be a further factor explaining why Christians come to such different conclusions. We tend to interpret our experience through our theological grid. This is an uncomfortable thought! We prefer to think of ourselves as coming to Scripture with a blank sheet, objectively weighing up what we read, and coming to a reasoned conclusion.

This combination of temperament, experience and theological grid will certainly have a bearing on the way we read individual texts. For example, take Galatians 5:17: “For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do.” Is that final phrase an expression of frustration akin to Romans 7:19, or a positive observation that the indwelling Holy Spirit enables us to stop doing those things that were once natural to us? Our conclusion will likely be shaped by our overall expectation with respect to sanctification.

Or consider 2 Chronicles 32:31: “…in the matter of the envoys of the princes of Babylon… God left [Hezekiah] to himself, in order to test him and to know all that was in his heart.” Is this verse primarily an indication of the inward depravity of Hezekiah, or does it testify to the power of God at work in him on all the other occasions when God enabled him to respond in a godly way? Our instinctive answer to such a question, and the way we ‘preach it’, will be shaped by our overall approach. We need to be alert to this dynamic.

h. Optimism and realism

In the light of all that we have considered thus far in this third section of the paper, what expectations are we to have, and to give to our people, in terms of achievable holiness? Surely there is a need for both optimism and realism.

In terms of optimism, God sanctifies (Phil 2:13), so he will not be ultimately thwarted. John Murray’s insistence on the actual dethronement of sin at conversion is helpful.^[35] Wayne Grudem too is pastorally optimistic: mature Christians can hope to be free for significant periods from conscious or wilful acts of disobedience in word and deed.^[36]

In addition, we should always hold onto the possibility that we may yet experience more of God and his sanctifying grace than we perhaps expect. In this regard, I have to confess that I was more inspired by reading Andrew Naselli’s history of the Keswick movement than by his subsequent critique of it (though the book as a whole was helpful).^[37] I would rather hold out for the possibility of an experience that I haven’t had, than the deadening “this is all there is”.

Nevertheless, Realism is equally important. We need to understand 1 John 3:6 in a way that doesn’t contradict 1 John 1:8. It’s possible to have a ‘Scriptural construct’ which is unreal or unrealistic: we say the right things, bringing out ‘clichés’, but knowing deep down that things aren’t really like that. This is ultimately corrosive to faith. Similarly, a repeated determination that “today is the first day of the rest of my life” can breed weariness and cynicism. We must never forget that the Lord is pleased with faithful plodding.

We need to have a pastorally-tailored approach. Some of our people need to be boldly challenged that “without holiness no-one will see the Lord” (Heb 12:14). Others in our congregations need to be reassured that “God is not unjust so as to overlook your work and the love that you have shown for his name in serving the saints, as you still do.” (Heb 6:10). This is analogous to the practical challenge of applying 1 Thessalonians 5:14: “admonish the idle, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with them all”. It is uncomfortably easy to admonish the fainthearted and the weak whilst encouraging the idle (leaving them unchallenged) if our approach is pastorally tone-deaf. In the same way, we need to target our optimism and realism such that people hear what they need to hear in order to move forward in their Christian lives.

V. Conclusion

When I was kindly asked to give this paper, I was supplied with a sample paper from a previous year. This paper on The Intermediate State was erudite, copiously footnoted and with an admirable bibliography. I was thus lulled into a false sense of possibility. The paper you have just read bears a very different stamp. In the main that reflects the limitations of its author. But in my defence, I would also ask whether a larger subject could possibly be conceived (excepting perhaps ‘the doctrine of God’) than ‘sanctification and consistent godly living’?

Given the unwieldy size of the subject, we have divided it into three pies, and considered a tiny slice from each. The goal has been practical:

• firstly, to suggest that the Sermon on the Mount is a ‘Discipleship course par excellence’ and to encourage us to use it as such, or at least to let it inform our discipleship and alert us to areas we may be inclined to skimp on, not least the primary importance of character, and above all humility;
• secondly, to suggest that the commitments of the Jerusalem Church provide an admirably balanced framework for considering how we should go about promoting godliness in our lives and in our churches, and to ask whether one or more of the four elements are lacking in our own approach;
• thirdly, to think through our theological framework for understanding the Christian life, to make sure that it hasn’t become simplistic or unbalanced.

The disparate nature of the three sections precludes a conclusion in the normal sense. Nevertheless, it may be worth ‘joining up the dots’ or at least two of the dots, one from the first section and one from the third. One key conclusion from the first section was the importance of character when it comes to the What? of holiness. One observation from the third section was that the Christian life is as much about holiness in each new life situation as it is cumulative growth ‘on one axis’. But character is one of the constants through life: whatever new situations arise, we should face them with the trusting humility that heads the list of Jesus’ beatitudes. This is one further reason for stressing character in our pursuit and promotion of holiness: character will stand us in good stead, however else the practical shape of holiness may change as we progress through life. May God indeed grant us both to grow in holiness and to live consistent godly lives, by his enabling Spirit, for the honour and renown of his Son.

---

FOOTNOTES:

[1] E.g., Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology (Leicester: IVP, 2004), 746-62; John M. Frame, Doctrine of the Christian Life (Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 2008); Oliver O’Donovan, Resurrection and Moral Order (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986).

[2] E.g., Sinclair Ferguson, Devoted to God (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2016); J. C. Ryle, Holiness (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2014; originally published 1877).

[3] Discipleship courses feel far less common than Evangelistic courses (Alpha, Christianity/Life/Hope Explored etc.). Does this suggest a need to rebalance our focus?

[4] For a helpful discussion of how we got to where we are, see Carl Trueman, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self (Wheaton: Crossway, 2020).

[5] For a helpful discussion of anxiety, see Matthew A. Lapine, The Logic of the Body (Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2020).

[6] See the excellent online article: www.firstthings.com/article/2022/02/the-three-worlds-of-evangelicalism

[7] On gospel/law issues, see the counterpoints volume, Wayne G. Strickland, The Law, The Gospel, and the Modern Christian, five views (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993).

[8] Not to mention ‘the Lord’s Prayer’, which has often been used to organise teaching on the Christian life; see, for example, The Westminster Shorter Catechism, questions 99-107.

[9] Nevertheless, at the same time we need to maintain the vital distinction between sin and temptation, lest we collapse the two into one, and lose all the comfort of Hebrews 4:15 and 2:18.

[10] A further helpful resource is a robust, unashamed, literal interpretation of Song of Solomon, seen as expounding Proverbs 5:15-19!

[11] Tim Keller, How To Reach The West Again (New York: Redeemer City to City, 2020).

[12] Think perhaps of 5:20, the heart righteousness of 5:22,28;37, the challenge of 5:44, and the impossible standard of 5:48!

[13] D. A. Carson, The Sermon on the Mount (Grand Rapids; Baker, 1978), 20.

[14] Sinclair Ferguson, The Sermon on the Mount, (Edinburgh; Banner of Truth Trust, 1987), 17.

[15] D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, The Sermon on the Mount, (Leicester: IVP, 1976; first published 1959-60), 55.

[16] D. A. Carson, The Sermon on the Mount, 20.

[17] Note also, the sermon starts with poverty of spirit and ends with asking, a gospel inclusio.

[18] See also 2 Corinthians 10:1: “I, Paul, myself entreat you, by the meekness (praütes) and gentleness of Christ…”.

[19] Sinclair Ferguson, The Sermon on the Mount, 31.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Might this quality of heart-purity also cast light on the strange moment in John 8:6,8 where Jesus stoops to write on the ground? There is no shortage of (completely unverifiable) speculation as to what Jesus wrote, but could it be mere doodling and a downward gaze, given that a woman caught in the act of adultery would likely be scantily clad?

[22] In each of the given references, the Hebrew word for poor (‘anw / ‘aniy) is present; the English translations vary: poor, humble etc.

[23] Micah 6:8 would provide another co-location of beatitudes in its call for righteousness, mercy, and humility.

[24] Perhaps C. J. Mahaney, Humility (Colorado Springs, Multnomah, 2005) should be one of the first books we recommend to new converts?

[25] Jonathan Edwards, Religious Affections (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1986; Originally published 1746).

[26] It is sadly ironic that some people who rightly emphasise holiness are less than exemplary in their practical commitment to a local church: someone like A. W. Pink springs to mind.

[27] Perhaps Dane C. Ortlund’s books Gentle and Lowly (Wheaton: Crossway, 2020) and Deeper (Wheaton: Crossway, 2021) exemplify this approach.

[28] In Justification we depend totally upon God in his work for us. In Sanctification we depend totally upon God in our work for him.

[29] Philippians 1:9-11: All you need is love (the Beatles were right!) But… (1) not irrational, but informed, v9c; (2) not indiscriminate, but discerning, v10a; (3) not immoral, but upright, v10b; (4) not momentary, but forward-looking, v10c; (5) not intangible, but practical, v11a; (6) not introspective, but God-promoting, v11b. (and it’s not easy, whatever the Beatles may have sung!).

[30] Colossians 1:9-14: WWJD = ‘What Would Jesus Do?’? Rather… WWJ Deserve? (a worthy life), WWJ Delight in? (a pleasing life) => “Have nothing in your life that you do not know to be worthy of Christ or believe to be pleasing to him”. This will include… (1) bearing fruit in every good work; (2) growing in the knowledge of God, (3) patiently enduring by God’s power, and (4) joyfully giving thanks, above all for salvation! Note the balance: doing and knowing; ‘grit’ and joy. If we are to live such lives, we need to have a spiritual grasp of God’s will.

[31] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, 746.

[32] The title of a book on discipleship by Eugene Peterson, but the original quote is from Friedrich Nietzsche!

[33] Roger Steer, J. Hudson Taylor: A Man in Christ (Milton Keynes: OMF / Paternoster, 2001; originally published 1990), 242.

[34] This is evident in the writings of, for example, John Newton.

[35] John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961), 141ff

[36] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, 752.

[37] Andrew D. Naselli, No Quick Fix (Bellingham: Lexham, 2017).