Optional Lordship

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.  Matthew 7:21

In this article, I would like to address the essential flaw with modern evangelicalism. This flaw does not appear so much in the statements and articles of faith of the various churches within the evangelical sphere, but rather is manifest within the mindset of both the leadership and laity of the church today.  It is a fault which exists within the present church’s understanding, interpretation, and consequently, definition of what it means to be a follower of Jesus Christ—what it means to be a Christian.

At some point within the evolution of the evangelical church of North America, a viewpoint of salvation was embraced which did not consider entire submission to Christ as essential.  It became possible in the minds of those within the church to somehow receive eternal life without having to yield fully to the lordship of Jesus Christ.  This resulted in the development of a “two-tiered” Christianity which recognized two distinct classes of Christians: the “believer” or “Christian,” and the “disciple.”  In this “two-tiered” concept of the Christian faith, the “believer” is considered anyone who has accepted Jesus as his Saviour—regardless of whether or not he submits to him as Lord—and the “disciple” is he who follows Christ more deeply, who lives a life of submission to Christ. Within this philosophy, it is presumed that both “believer” and “disciple” equally share in a common salvation, with the only distinction appearing to be with regard to their respective levels of commitment.

Now before I comment upon the absurdity of making two classes of Christians, and the impossibility of salvation apart from entire submission to Christ, I would like to offer a brief anecdote in support of my statement that such a “two-tiered” Christianity indeed exists within modern evangelicalism.  Many years ago, I heard a very well-known minister in one of his sermons reminisce about his conversion to Christ.  In his sermon he stated that in a certain month of a certain year that “Jesus became his Saviour.”  He went on to say however, that it was not until sometime afterward that “Jesus became his Lord.”  He made a clear distinction between these two events, and confidently asserted that he was in a saved state prior to yielding his life to Jesus Christ.  Thus within his mind, and perhaps even his theology, it was possible to enter into a relationship with Christ wherein the benefits of his salvation may be received while the authority of his dominion may be refused.  Consequently, this minister—and the countless others like him who assert the same things—make the lordship of Christ optional with regard to salvation.

Now that these ministers do indeed make the lordship of Christ optional should be evident. For, if salvation is possible prior to a full and conscious submission to Christ, then such submission is not essential to salvation.  If therefore submission to Jesus Christ is not essential to one’s salvation, then it must be regarded as optional to the same.  For whatever is not essential can at best be only optional. Indeed, if one can be saved without fully submitting to the lordship of Christ, then any subsequent submission is entirely optional—it may be either rendered or withheld without any effect upon the salvation which was received irrespective of it.

But this notion that one may embrace Christ as his Saviour while refusing his lordship is indeed impossible, and when examined in the light of Scripture, quickly shows itself to be absurd, for it is not only contradictory to Scripture, but indeed makes a mockery of it as well.

For consider what difficulties arise if we try to harmonize an “optional lordship” with the Word of God. Here are just a few examples:

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.  For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.  Romans 10:9, 10

The Scripture here tells us that confession is made unto salvation.  But what is it that we must confess? It is “the Lord Jesus,” or as other translations state, Jesus as Lord.  But if I have only accepted Jesus as my Saviour, and am conscious that I have not fully submitted to Him as Lord, how can I confess him as such? Am I to confess that which is not true to me personally, that which I resist and am unwilling to embrace?  If I confess Jesus as Lord, shouldn’t I in truth submit to him as Lord?

Now if I confess Jesus as Lord when in truth I have not yielded to him, I confess that which is in my case a lie.  Such a confession cannot result in salvation—for it is not possible that God would bestow upon me the riches of his grace in response to a declaration of a submission that I have not given. Thus from this verse, we must infer that not only is a confession of the lordship of Christ essential to the appropriation of salvation, but of necessity, a submission to that lordship as well.  

But does not the Lord himself also make abundantly clear that a mere confession of his lordship is of little consequence if it is not validated by an actual submission to him?  For He says:

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.  Matthew 7:21

What then is the will of him which is in heaven?  Is it to divide the Son into a Saviour to receive, but a Lord to resist?  Does not the will of the Father include entire submission to the Son?  Who then can make the Son’s lordship optional and yet be considered a friend of God?  For the friend of God is he who does those things which are commanded him.  As it is written:

Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.  John 15:14

But they who confess Christ as Lord without true submission not only fail to receive salvation, but rather receive a rebuke for such a confession.  As the Lord says:

And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?  Luke 6:46

Consider also this verse from the Lord’s Prayer:

Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Matthew 6:10

A believer who does not submit fully to Christ cannot pray the Lord’s Prayer without making himself a hypocrite.  For how can a man who knows himself to be unwilling to surrender to God utter the words ‘Thy kingdom come, thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven’ and be anything but a hypocrite?  For a kingdom consists in rule, dominion, and authority.  But he who will not surrender to the lordship of Christ is in fact unwilling to have his rule, dominion, and authority extend to his own heart and life.  How can he therefore say ‘thy kingdom come?’ What does he mean by such a petition?  He should rather say, ‘Thy kingdom come—except within me'—for this would more accurately depict the true state of his soul.

As well, what does he desire when he prays, ‘Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven?’  Surely he can only wish that the will of God would be carried out within the hearts, souls, and lives of others—for in that he is not in submission to Christ, he does thereby show himself unwilling to conform to the will of God personally.  How can he, therefore, ever be genuine in asking God to establish his will on earth when he is unwilling that it should be established within himself?   

Another example of the irreconcilability of an “optional lordship” with the Word of God is found in the first epistle of Peter, where we read:

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:  1 Peter 3:15

Other translations read thus:

But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts…  NASB

But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord…  NIV

Believers are here commanded to “sanctify the Lord God” in their hearts, or more precisely, to “sanctify” or “set apart” Christ as Lord.  The whole of Christendom acknowledges Christ as Lord on an intellectual and theological level, but it is the true Christian who embraces him as Lord in his heart. Now the heart is the seat of the affections, the very core of our moral nature.  It is here where Christ must be Lord if we are to be considered true.  Anything less results in an empty profession of faith—a “form of godliness” perhaps—but a departure from true Christianity to be sure.   

As stated, this verse is spoken as a command.  How then can the lordship of Christ, which is precisely what this verse commands us to embrace in the depths of our being, be regarded as optional?  Does Peter make exemptions for any to whom he writes?  Does this verse in any way suggest that the apostles envisioned a “two-tiered” kingdom of heaven in which the “truly submitted disciples” dwell with the “unwilling to submit believers?”

Now I could go on at length offering scriptures to show the absurdity of the notion of an optional lordship, but the few mentioned should suffice.  In truth the entirety of Scripture opposes such a notion either by, as we have seen, directly stating the opposite, or by setting forth the nature of true religion which is irreconcilable to this notion. Let us be honest: He who would attempt to receive the benefits of Christ’s saving grace, while resisting true submission to him is in fact a cheat—for he seeks to “enter the sheepfold” by “climbing up some other way.”  

To conclude, I will answer a few objections.

Objection:  It is unreasonable to consider entire submission to the lordship of Christ as essential to salvation.

Answer:  On the contrary, it is indeed our “reasonable service,” to “present (yield) our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God” (Romans 12:1). Submission to the lordship of Christ seems unreasonable only to him who has not submitted, but to him who has, it is no burden, but rather life and peace.

Objection:  Entire submission to the lordship of Christ cannot be essential to salvation for the spiritual experience of the majority of believers does not include such submission, nor does the majority consider this submission essential.

Answer:  What a sad state of affairs when the majority of “believers” are unwilling to yield to the Lord whom they profess to serve!  But neither the experience nor considerations of the majority determine the way of salvation. Remember: “wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat” Matthew 7:13.

Objection:  God saves men by grace through faith alone, and not as a result of works.  Submission to the lordship of Christ is a human action, and therefore a “work.”  Hence, this submission cannot be essential to salvation.

Answer:  Ah, spoken like a true Pharisee or Sadducee!  For was it not these enemies of Christ, skilled in the manipulation of the Word of God, who did exalt and observe one truth at the expense of another?  This they did that they might shirk what was their clear duty before God, and thus avoid true obedience to him.  Yet in this their wickedness, they considered themselves to be pious, and went about “deceiving and being deceived.”

It is true that salvation is by grace through faith alone, that it is “not of works.” But is it not also true that, ‘If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it,’ and that, ‘Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven? He who therefore uses the truth concerning grace to absolve himself from entire submission to Christ does indeed bring forth the fruit of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

But he who would exalt grace and faith to the neglecting of entire submission to the lordship of Christ understands neither grace nor faith.  For in that he imagines some incompatibility between grace through faith and entire submission to Christ, he does proclaim his ignorance and perhaps his wickedness as well—ignorance, if he assumes that grace is bestowed unconditionally, and that faith is some passive mental assent unattended by any action—wickedness, if he develops and defends such notions to circumvent his duty to Jesus Christ.  

A final word concerning “optional Lordship”

To the true Christian, “optional Lordship” is no option at all. For in that he finds himself, by the grace of God, to be in a state of submission to the lordship of Christ personally, and is conscious that the communion with God which he enjoys would not be possible without such submission, he cannot therefore imagine such submission to be optional—nor can he sympathize with those who would seek salvation apart from a full surrender to Jesus Christ. To the Christian, the idea of an “optional Lordship” is offensive, for he cannot see it to be anything other than what it is—an offense to God, and an insult to Christ.    

A Foundation for Fellowship

That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. 1 John 1-3

Anyone who has been involved with evangelical Christianity for any length of time is familiar with the word “fellowship.”  To be sure, it is a word which every believer is not only familiar with, but inevitably finds as part of his own vocabulary sometime shortly after he embraces the Christian faith.  The word “fellowship,” along with “communion,” is the English translation of the Greek word koinonia, which may be defined as “a sharing of interests, mutual experiences, thoughts, feelings, etc.;” as well as conveying the idea of “companionship.”  The word “fellowship” is used to describe the spiritual relationship which exists between true believers, and as well the relationship which exists between the believer and God. 

Although we may be familiar with the terms “fellowship” and “communion,” and as well may experience such things to various degrees, there at the same time exists a lack of understanding as to what true fellowship is, and as well a lack of emphasis on those things upon which it must be based.  True fellowship consists in something greater than the mere friendships, relationships, and social networks which believers establish with one another.  These things may be of importance, but in themselves do not adequately represent the fellowship spoken of in Scripture.  Indeed, this fellowship is spiritual in nature, based upon the foundation of a mutual spiritual experience.  It is not based upon common natural interests or similar social status, and is not limited by ethnicity, denominational affiliation, or culture. 

As already stated, “fellowship” defines the spiritual relationship existing between the believer and God as well as the relationship believers share with one another.  As “fellowship” is a sharing of experiences, thoughts, feelings, and interests, it therefore can only exist when these things are held in common.  In other words, true spiritual fellowship can only exist when believers experience the same things, value the same things and strive for the same things.  I do not mean that believers must agree about every point of doctrine or observance in order to have true fellowship one with another.  This type of agreement has rarely, if ever, existed within the church.  But I do mean that certain criteria must be met if true fellowship is to exist.  There of necessity must be certain conditions, certain standards to which believers must conform if fellowship is to be realized.

To demonstrate my point, consider a scenario involving two believers with very different standards regarding commitment to Jesus Christ.  The first believer has in truth denied himself taken up his cross and followed Christ with all of his heart, while the second believer knows no such thing, but rather sees such dedication as optional.  Is it possible that these two could be “in fellowship” with one another? They certainly do not share the same commitment, or the same experience, nor do they value the same things.  In this scenario the lack of a mutual spirituality prevents any possibility of sharing like thoughts, feelings, or interests- for what the first considers sacred and precious, the second is oblivious to and demeaning toward.  No true fellowship can exist between them, for with regard to spiritual things, they speak, as it were, a different language.

Now the conditions and standards which determine true fellowship are clearly laid out in Scripture.  When these conditions are met, spiritual fellowship results as a matter of course.  Thankfully, the Scripture does not burden us with innumerable conditions regarding fellowship.  It does however, insist upon two. The first of these pertains to proper theology regarding the Lord Jesus Christ, specifically, the truth revealed to, and handed down by his apostles regarding his Divine Person and eternal union with the Father.  As John in his own words states:

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)

That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. 1 John 1-3

From this verse, we see that the apostles and their associates not only believed the truth regarding the Son of God, but also experienced an intimacy, a communion, with both the Father and the resurrected Christ.  It is this fellowship with God, this spiritual union, upon which true brotherly fellowship is founded.  John makes it clear to his readers that to be in fellowship with the apostles and their associates, is also to be in communion with the Father and the Son.  But he also states that this fellowship is predicated upon embracing and adhering to that which the apostles have both seen and heard first hand.  This eyewitness account regarding the Lord Jesus is the foundation of the “apostles’ doctrine” upon which the church is established.  Any deviation from their account renders fellowship with them, and Christ as well, impossible.

Peter also emphasizes the authority of the apostles’ eyewitness account:

For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. 2 Peter 1:16-18

In John’s second epistle, we are introduced to the term “the doctrine of Christ,” which John uses to define the whole of that which the apostles have seen and heard regarding the Person of Christ.  This is the most important doctrine regarding Christianity, and thus the doctrine essential to true fellowship.  Consider the importance that John places upon this doctrine.

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God.  He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.  If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:  For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.  2 John 9-11

The “doctrine of Christ” is that truth regarding who He is- “true God from true God,” the eternal Son of God and the Eternal Word, having always existed with God as God; who became man, being born of a virgin, thus uniting within himself both the human and Divine natures, while in no way, or at any time, being less than truly man and truly God.  This was, is, and shall ever be the faith of the saints.  This doctrine is the “rock” upon which the church is built.  It is a doctrine of such importance that one cannot “have God” without holding it fast.  He that denies this doctrine, who in anyway compromises the truth regarding the Divinity of the Lord Jesus, is an enemy of God, and should be neither welcomed into the believer’s home, nor even wished well!    

Before I move to the second condition concerning fellowship, I should state that the doctrinal agreement necessary to facilitate true fellowship is in truth broader than mere agreement regarding the doctrine of Christ.  For indeed fellowship cannot exist where there is error regarding other essential doctrines such as regeneration, justification, salvation, the doctrines regarding the Holy Spirit, etc.  But I have limited my commentary regarding what must be agreed upon doctrinally to one area, namely the apostles’ doctrine regarding the Person of Jesus Christ (and although not directly stated but inferred, the doctrine of the tri-unity of the three Divine Persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) for three reasons.  Firstly, as stated, the above mentioned doctrine is the most important truth regarding the Christian faith, regarding which there can be no variance, and thus is the essential.  Secondly, space would not allow a commentary on other essential doctrines. Thirdly, many of the doctrinal differences which prevent fellowship among believers can be addressed and resolved by conforming to the second condition for fellowship which is to follow.

As shown, the first condition for fellowship pertains to orthodoxy regarding theology.  The second pertains to orthodoxy regarding conduct.  Christians may assume that fellowship is a given provided that they agree with one another regarding theology.  Yet theological agreement is no guarantee that believers will experience fellowship with one another.  Two believers may agree doctrinally, but may be in complete disunity when it comes to how they actually live.  In truth, breeches of fellowship are more often the result of bad conduct than bad theology.  For how we conduct ourselves with regard to sin, and how we live our lives in the sight of God, will ultimately determine whether or not we have fellowship with him and with each other. 

As well, the divisions which plague the church theologically are often fuelled by the bad conduct of men who are contentious, contrary, proud, and unreasonable- who make minor points of difference major issues, and make personal preferences into dogma.  For if men conducted themselves rightly, if they were given to prayer and communion with God, they would become more reasonable, being led by the Holy Spirit, and would see more clearly as to what is and is not essential to fellowship.  But those who live wrongly end up majoring in minors, rejoicing when others adopt their particular convictions and frowning when they do not. 

Also, if men lived rightly, the theology and teaching of the church would reflect their godly conduct rather than being skewed by the effects of their sinful behaviour.  For when men live in sin, they develop a theology which justifies and approves of them irrespective of their moral state.  This explains the many versions of the gospel which are with us today, which are offered as a means whereby the impenitent may be justified, the selfish approved, and the ungodly accommodated.  Indeed, the great truths concerning the love of God, grace, and justification are presented today in such a way as to never require a departure from sin. But if men in truth “denied themselves,” and “took up their cross,” and followed Christ without compromise, they would not be willing to present or embrace a “gospel” which did not demand the same.  And if men were no longer content to continue in sin, they would no longer develop theologies which allow for perpetuity in corruption.

Now that proper conduct is essential to true fellowship is evident:

This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.  If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:  1 John 5, 6

In this verse John declares that the message which the apostles had received was one of purity- “God is light, and in him is no darkness.”  Light speaks of God’s moral purity and excellence, of his holiness, and of his exaltation above sin and corruption.  Notice what John says: If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth.  Here we have a condition for fellowship: If we are to have fellowship with God, we cannot walk in darkness, for to even profess such fellowship while walking in darkness is to lie and to do not the truth.  This verse therefore defines true Christianity, for Christianity is indeed itself a profession of fellowship with God.  Thus, the true Christian is he who is in reality in fellowship with God.  But he who professes Christianity and yet walks in darkness cannot be considered true- for he does not the truth- but merely professes a fellowship with God which he has not.

But not only does “walking in darkness” make communion with God an impossibility, it also makes true fellowship among believers impossible as well- for true fellowship is only possible when believers “walk in the light as He (God) is in the light.”  As it is written:

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.  1 John 1:7

In this verse we are given an absolute regarding fellowship: If we “walk in the light,” we have fellowship with one another.  We are assured of fellowship if this condition is met. This statement is certain, and thus eliminates any possibility of two believers being unable to partake of fellowship with one another when each walks rightly.  Indeed, believers should take heed to that which may rightly be inferred from this verse.  For if two believers cannot partake of true fellowship one with another, the following must be true: Either the first believer is in the light and the second is not, or the second is in the light, and the first is not.  For it is not possible that both are “walking in the light,” else they would enjoy fellowship with one another.  Now there exists one other possibility here: Neither is “walking in the light,” but rather after his own falsehood, his own religious “spirit” as it were, thereby becoming increasingly contentious, “pleasing not God, and contrary to all men.”

Now the terms walk in darkness, and walk in the light, perhaps need some defining. “To walk” implies continuance in a certain course.  It is the rule of conduct, not the exception.  A sincere believer may err, he may sin and do wrong- but this is not the rule by which he lives, it is the exception.  Thus, he may step into darkness, but he will not continue therein.  Similarly, the sinner may have a moment of religious excitement, a moment in which his mind is enlightened, in which he feels something for God and in which he feels “good will toward men.”  But this is a fleeting moment, a spasm, for it is not the rule by which he lives, but a mere aberration from his usual selfishness.   Thus, he steps into “the light” as it were, but quickly returns to, and continues in disobedience.

Sadly, the conduct of many professing believers is very much like the “walk” of the sinner which I have just described, and not that of the saint.  For when believers live self-centered lives, when they retain the right to continue in sin, and when they live week after week, month after month, and year after year, without fully submitting and surrendering themselves to Christ, how could it be said that they “walk in the light?” In truth they do not, but rather walk in darkness.  They may indeed enjoy friendship and companionship with others like themselves- for the church has no shortage of these - but they do not partake of intimate communion with God, nor do they enter into fellowship with those who do.

With such clear conditions regarding fellowship established, we should perceive the seriousness of our responsibility.  Certainly, the church was intended to be a gathering of believers who in truth commune with God, and as well commune with one another on a spiritual plane, having experienced similar workings of the Spirit in the inner man.  When such communion with God and one another exists, the church is strong and effective.  When it is absent, the church dies, and decays into a religious institution, where true spiritual experience exists only in creeds and in statements of faith.  Thus, every believer has a great responsibility, for individually each contributes to the health of the church or to its demise by either “walking in the light” or by continuing in darkness.    

Having therefore a foundation for fellowship laid for us in the Scripture, let us consider how we will build upon it.  For we are invited into fellowship with the Father and the Son- we should walk therefore worthy of that invitation.  Thus, let every believer who professes to follow Christ actually follow.  And let every believer who is zealous to proclaim the joys of serving Christ actually serve him.  For he who professes one thing yet does another walks in darkness. 

But he who will walk in the light will dwell with God, and will be a strength and confirmation to those who as well walk this way.