Out of Neutral | Grace Baptist Church

Three Truths to Combat Your News Anxiety

[https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/56b23a868a65e24fb5da70bb/d9665eaa-d9da-4126-b259-4cf7d896711c/OON+20260520.png?format=1000w] Three Truths to Combat Your News Anxiety Paul Sadler More and more today, people are experiencing what psychologists are calling “headline stress disorder” and news-related anxiety. The American Psychiatric Association reported last year that 67% of those they interviewed were anxious about current events. Even though the news is triggering the anxiety, people compulsively check the news for reassurance, the way a person repeatedly checks to see whether the doors are locked for fear of an intruder. We fixate on worrying circumstances that are beyond our control and, as a result, experience elevated stress, headaches, sleep problems, and feelings of dread and helplessness. Three foundational truths from the Bible about the future can help with this. 1. THE WORLD WON’T BE DESTROYED BY CLIMATE CHANGE, NUCLEAR WAR, OR A.I. The Bible is very clear about how the end of the world will be triggered. It won’t be through an environmental disaster, a nuclear war, or a digital takeover of our planet. In fact, Jesus said, “And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet” (Matthew 24:6). The end of the world will come when Jesus returns, this time not as a baby in a manger but descending from heaven (1 Thessalonians 4:16), “coming with the clouds” (Revelation 1:7), “as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west” (Matthew 24:27). That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do what we can for the environment, seek to bring peace where there is conflict, or put safeguards on our technologies—it just means that none of these threats are ultimate. Our lives and this planet aren’t in the hands of Greta Thunberg, Vladimir Putin, or Sam Altman. Our lives are in Jesus’ hands, and we will ultimately answer to Him. Our reassurance isn’t in the news; it’s in His second coming. 2. THIS LIFE ISN’T THE END Stephen Hawking once said, “I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken-down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.” Statements like this can deepen anxiety because they leave people without hope beyond this life. If this life is all there is, we have to find all our hope, meaning, joy, and purpose here and now. That makes every news crisis an existential threat. The Bible paints a different picture. It says that all people will one day be resurrected from the dead to enter an eternal existence. In John 5:28-29, for instance, Jesus said, “Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.” In Matthew 25:46, He said, “And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” If this life is just a precursor to judgment and eternal life or eternal punishment, then the highs and lows we experience here are not nearly as consequential. That’s why the apostle Paul was able to call his trial a “light momentary affliction” (2 Corinthians 4:16) and say, “The things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal” (2 Corinthians 4:17). If I can learn to measure the news and my own circumstances against the backdrop of eternity, I can stop doomscrolling and give my attention to the things that really matter. 3. THERE’S A FINAL JUDGMENT THAT WILL RIGHT THE WRONGS OF THIS WORLD’S INJUSTICE There’s nothing like injustice to stir up our anger. Hearing incidents of economic injustice or racial injustice can open up old wounds and eat away at us. Personal experiences of injustice with the legal system, an employer, or even a spouse can make us feel powerless. While the news often intensifies our anger, reflecting on the Bible’s teaching about the final judgment can bring relief. 2 Corinthians 5:10 says, “We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.” Jesus added, “I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak” (Matthew 12:36). If I know that a day is coming when Jesus is going to perfectly judge everyone, then no one will ultimately get away with anything. But if my enemy is going to answer to Jesus, then I will also. I can release the evil people of this world to His judgment, but I also have to deal with my own evil. Yet Jesus offers a pardon to all who turn from their sin and trust in Him. As He says in John 5:24, “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.” Can you see how reflecting more deeply on the Bible’s teaching about the future could relieve the doom that comes from endless scrolling? The Fellowship Affirmation of Faith says the following about Future Things: > We believe in the personal and bodily return of the Lord Jesus Christ in power and glory; in the bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust to stand before God in the final judgment; in the eternal, conscious punishment of the unregenerate in hell; and in the eternal blessedness of the redeemed in the new heavens and the new earth. In awe of Him, Paul

What Is the Separation of Church and State and Why Does It Matter?

[https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/56b23a868a65e24fb5da70bb/62641bf4-54c3-4bac-bd42-cb0bce20f8c5/OON+20260513.png?format=1000w] What Is the Separation of Church and State and Why Does It Matter? Paul Sadler When Emperor Constantine professed faith in Christ in 312 AD, Christians had been facing persecution for almost as long as the church existed. They were set on fire by Nero in the first century, executed by Trajan in the second century, and tortured, burned alive, and fed to animals by Diocletian in the third century. When Constantine embraced Christianity, it must have felt like all the church’s prayers were answered. The following year, he signed the Edict of Milan, which legalized Christianity and granted broad religious toleration throughout the empire. Unfortunately, that didn’t mean that the church’s problems were over. After professing faith in Christ, he had his soldiers paint the sign of the cross on their shields to secure victory in battle. All of a sudden, the symbol of Christ’s death for sinners became a good luck charm in a military conquest. Constantine gave wealth, tax exemptions, and legal authority to Christian ministers and in doing so attracted power-hungry leaders rather than spiritually qualified candidates. It was advantageous to identify as a Christian now, and nominal faith spread as a result. The state’s power was also used to exile heretics and seize the churches of leaders who didn’t accept his decisions. By mixing church and state, Christianity became a political identity, and the government became a means to enforce religious conformity. Unfortunately, the church has often failed to learn from the past, and Protestants and Catholics alike have repeated history’s mistakes again and again. The allure of power tempts the church in every generation. Scripture helps us avoid repeating those mistakes. Three biblical principles especially help us understand the relationship between church and state. 1. JESUS DID NOT ESTABLISH HIS KINGDOM THROUGH POLITICAL POWER We often think that state authority would help the gospel spread more effectively, but Jesus explicitly resisted efforts to establish His kingdom through political power. For example, in John 6:15, when He perceived “that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king,” it says, “Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself.” Later, when Jesus was interrogated by Pilate, He said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews” (John 18:36). Jesus is the King of kings, but His kingdom is not established through political force. 2. CHURCH AND STATE HAVE DISTINCT GOD-GIVEN RESPONSIBILITIES The Roman Empire was marked by cruel dictators. King Herod sought to kill Jesus at His birth and Pilate carried out His execution. Despite this, Jesus recognized their authority, famously saying, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's” (Matthew 22:21). Paul expanded on this teaching, calling governing authorities “ministers of God” (Romans 13:6) and “God’s servant[s] for your good” (Romans 13:4), saying that they “bear the sword” to carry out “God’s wrath on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:4). Peter also addressed the role of government, saying, “Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good” (1 Peter 2:13-14). So while the church makes disciples and spiritually disciplines those who betray their confession as citizens of heaven, civil government serves society at large by promoting good and physically punishing those who do evil.   3. THE CHURCH’S MISSION ISN’T ADVANCED WITH THE WORLD’S WEAPONS The temptation to use the state to advance the gospel is attractive because of the power possessed by the government. Since Christians are so often disadvantaged by civil power, we’re tempted to seek that power to impose religious conformity or secure special advantages for Christians. Paul reminds us, though, that our power is spiritual, not political, and our battle is waged with persuasion, not coercion. As he says in 2 Corinthians 10:4-5, “For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ.” Christians should vote, and they can be active in civic and public life, but government isn’t the church, and Christian politicians have a responsibility to serve all of the nation’s citizens, not just the ones who believe the same things that they do. The Fellowship Affirmation of Faith [https://www.fellowship.ca/WhatWeBelieve] summarizes the Bible’s teaching on the church and state as follows: > We believe in the separation of church and state. The church should not resort to the state or worldly means to carry on its work. We believe that government is divinely appointed for the interest and good order of society, and its leaders are to be prayed for, conscientiously honoured and obeyed, except only in the things opposed to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only Lord of the conscience and Ruler of the kings of the earth. In awe of Him, Paul

Religious Liberty: Why Christianity Is the Faith That Defends the Rights of Its Opponents

[https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/56b23a868a65e24fb5da70bb/b90b381f-3ef1-4769-9b19-fda9ef8dd880/OON+m4w5+Thumbnail.png?format=1000w] Religious Liberty: Why Christianity Is the Faith That Defends the Rights of Its Opponents Paul Sadler Should Christians support laws that make it harder to be Muslim? If you had the political power to outlaw atheism, would you use it? Should religious freedom be a Christian right or a human right? Many people haven’t thought carefully about these questions, but history shows us why we should. Most people want the government to champion the things that they’re committed to. But in the case of faith, the Bible gives strong reasons for civil authority to protect the freedom of all religions, not to promote any one particular religion. Consider why. 1. VIOLATING A PERSON’S CONSCIENCE WOUNDS THEIR SOUL The biblical portrait of faith is Spirit-led freedom, not externally imposed coercion. In Galatians 5:1, Paul says, “For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.” Whenever external pressure is used to obligate religious practice, it forces a contradiction between belief and action. It legislates hypocrisy and corrupts true faith in the process. In Romans 14, Paul addresses Christians who disagree about grey areas of faith. Rather than just telling them the right position and demanding that everyone comply, he instead urges them to each decide the matter with the recognition that they will ultimately answer to God (Romans 14:5, 12). Then he adds, “Let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother” (Romans 14:13). If fellow believers are not permitted to bind each other’s conscience, how much less does the state have that authority. And, in fact, doing so can spiritually harm a person. If you pressure someone to do what they believe to be wrong—even if it’s right—it is wrong for them and will violate their conscience. As Paul puts it, “Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin” (Romans 14:23). We want people to be free to practise their faith because faith in Jesus is only possible as a free expression of a person’s will. And because governments aren’t qualified to judge people’s consciences. Forced faith is never genuine faith. The early church leader, Tertullian, said, “It is a fundamental human right, a privilege of nature, that every man should worship according to his own convictions.” 2. RELIGIOUS FREEDOM COMES WITH MORAL RESPONSIBILITY Although the biblical vision for faith is one rooted in freedom, it is not a licence for selfishness or recklessness. Galatians 5:13 says, “For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.” The Bible doesn’t give Christians or churches the “freedom” to ignore building codes or safety standards. A faith community can’t hide a predator behind the walls of religious privacy. Christian freedom isn’t a ticket to harm others and claim special protections. Religious freedom has always been about protecting the inner life of faith and its genuine expression, never about a blanket right to disregard legitimate authority in the name of faith. 3. CIVIL AUTHORITY WAS NEVER DESIGNED TO REGULATE FAITH It’s easy for people to think selfishly about government. We often assume it’s the power to get everything done the way we want it. But that’s precisely how Jesus ended up on the cross. Those who were in power decided His voice needed to be silenced. In Romans 13, Paul insists that governing authorities are “instituted by God” (Romans 13:1) and then adds, “He is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:4). The state is ordained by God to maintain order and punish wrongdoing. It is not given authority over conscience, worship, or the spread of faith. That’s why, when the apostles were forbidden by the religious authorities from telling others about Jesus, they answered, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). They realized that the state’s power was real but not absolute. It had the right to legislate taxation, justice, and public order, but not to demand conformity in religion or forbid people from sharing their faith. The Fellowship Affirmation of Faith gives a helpful summary of these principles: > We believe in religious liberty, that all people have the right to practise and propagate their beliefs without undue interference by the civil authority. Religious liberty isn’t a concession we make to the world. It’s a conviction rooted in the gospel itself. If we believe that faith must be free, then we need to defend that freedom not only for ourselves, but even for those who reject what we believe. In awe of Him, Paul

Is Sunday a Sabbath, a Secular Day, or Something Else?

[https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/56b23a868a65e24fb5da70bb/d46b89ae-5cb6-484c-852a-0933661c2cad/OON+m4w4+Thumbnail.png?format=1000w] Is Sunday a Sabbath, a Secular Day, or Something Else? Paul Sadler Many Christians grew up with a clear vision of what Sunday was all about. Morning and evening worship services bracketed a day that was often defined by what you couldn’t do: no shopping, no sports, no homework. Naps, fellowship, and Christian reading often filled their place. Today, people are quick to criticize the legalistic vision of the past but have often failed to replace it with anything else. How should a Christian understand Sunday, and what, if anything, makes it different from every other day? SUNDAY = THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH VIEW During the Reformation, there was a movement to re-evaluate Sunday. The medieval church had mandated church attendance and prohibited any manual labour that interfered with it, but festivals, sports, and markets were common during the rest of the day. Although Calvin didn’t equate Sunday with the Sabbath in the later Puritan sense, much of the Reformed tradition that followed developed in that direction. They pointed to the fact that God Himself rested one day in seven (Genesis 2:2) and, in so doing, established a day of rest as a “law of nature.” They also argued that the moral commands of the Mosaic covenant are still binding, and so Christians are obligated to “Remember the Sabbath” and “to keep it holy” (Exodus 20:8). Believers not only attend church on Sunday, but they finish any work and prepare for Sunday, so that the entire day can be devoted to God and His people with exceptions only for works of necessity and mercy. The Westminster Confession and the London Baptist Confession of Faith both enshrined this view. SUNDAY = THE LORD’S DAY VIEW While seeing Sunday as the Sabbath is deeply embedded in many people’s consciences, the majority of Christians today are convinced that Scripture teaches otherwise. For starters, the church never refers to the day of their gathering as “the Sabbath,” preferring instead the term, “the Lord’s Day” (Revelation 1:10), or just “the first day of the week” (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2). Additionally, if the Sabbath is a binding command, it’s curious that the early church chose to gather on the first day of the week, not the seventh. This hardly reflects God’s pattern in Genesis. More importantly, the clearest New Testament teaching that directly addresses the Sabbath emphasizes freedom of conscience. Colossians 2:16 says, for instance, “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.” It would have been inconceivable for Moses to say this about the Sabbath. Similarly, Romans 14:5 says, “One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike.” Paul seems to be seeking the unity of a church where Jewish Christians continued to observe the Sabbath while Gentile Christians did not. Instead of urging uniformity, he calls believers to be fully convinced in their own mind (Romans 14:5) and act in a way that honours the Lord (Romans 14:6) with the knowledge that “each of us will give an account of himself to God” (Romans 14:12). This sense of accountability seems to be missing today. SUNDAY = MY DAY VIEW Far from being legalistic about what can and can’t be done on Sunday, many Christians today have no clear vision for the day at all. What was once structured around worship is now shaped by preference. In contrast to the example of the early church that gathered on the first day of the week, often at great personal cost, today, Sunday worship is often seen as just one option among others. The Lord’s Day doesn’t seem to belong to the Lord in any meaningful way anymore. This feels like a departure from Scripture and the pattern of the church. The Fellowship Affirmation of Faith allows for the conviction of Sunday as Sabbath but only explicitly affirms the Lord’s Day connection with Jesus’ resurrection and Christian worship. > We believe that the first day of the week is the Lord’s day in honour of his glorious resurrection and is a particularly appropriate day for corporate worship. Scripture may not bind every Christian to a Sabbatarian framework, but it does call us to recognize that this day uniquely belongs to the risen Lord. How do you honour the Lord on the Lord’s Day? In what sense do you see it uniquely belonging to Him? In awe of Him, Paul

How Zwingli, Calvin, and Rome Help Us Consider the Lord’s Supper

[https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/56b23a868a65e24fb5da70bb/16c1d583-5cce-4ea2-9d92-8ac9042c68c7/OON+m4w1+Thumbnail.png?format=1000w] How Zwingli, Calvin, and Rome Help Us Consider the Lord’s Supper Paul Sadler Every Christian tradition has to address the same question about the Lord’s Supper: what exactly is happening? Understanding the views and the Scriptures that support the various positions can only deepen a person’s experience of the Lord’s Supper. Let’s consider the views of Rome, Zwingli, and Calvin. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC VIEW: THE PRIEST PRESENTS A SACRIFICE AT THE ALTAR The Roman Catholic view of the Eucharist (meaning “thanksgiving”), or Lord’s Supper, is that the minister acts as a priest, and the table becomes an altar. Once consecrated, the bread becomes Christ’s body and is offered as a participation in Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice. They point to passages like John 6:51, “And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” Against this, Reformers pointed to Hebrews 10:12, which says that “when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,” and argued that any idea that the Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice and the minister is a priest at an altar contradicts Scripture. Catholics also teach that the Lord’s Supper conveys grace “ex opere operato,” meaning “by the work performed.” The idea is that the Lord’s Supper has inherent power whenever it is rightly performed. Historically, this created misunderstanding in many churches in Medieval Europe, with people gossiping, arguing, and conducting business during the Eucharist because they believed you’d get the blessing as long as you showed up. Even before the Reformation, this was widely criticized. 1 Corinthians 11 seems to directly address this. When the people were acting selfishly during the Lord’s Supper, Paul said “when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse” (1 Corinthians 11:17), even adding, “When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat” (1 Corinthians 11:20). Far from suggesting that it had effect regardless of the attitude of the participants, he warned them of the guilt of “[eating] the bread or [drinking] the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner” (1 Corinthians 11:27) and urged them to self-examination to avoid eating and drinking judgment upon themselves (1 Corinthians 11:29). ZWINGLI’S VIEW: THE CHURCH REMEMBERS CHRIST’S SACRIFICE Ulrich Zwingli was one of the great leaders of the Reformation in Switzerland. He rejected the idea that the Lord’s Supper is in any sense a sacrifice of Christ’s body. He argued instead that “this is my body” (1 Corinthians 11:24) means “this signifies my body.” The Lord’s Supper then is a memorial of His death, and while Christ is present as His people remember Him, He is not present in the bread or the cup themselves. He noted in particular the repeated references to “Do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24), and “Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me” (1 Corinthians 11:25). Zwingli’s position came to be known as the memorialist view, with the Lord’s Supper helping believers to remember Christ’s death on the cross for our sins. It is impossible to ignore that the Lord’s Supper is intended to help us remember Jesus. The question is whether it’s more. CALVIN’S VIEW: BELIEVERS SHARE IN CHRIST HIMSELF John Calvin also ministered in Switzerland during the Reformation, but Zwingli died when Calvin was only 22, so they never met. Calvin rejected the Catholic notion that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus, but he taught that they genuinely “exhibit Him.” In that sense, they are “spiritual food” to the believer. Calvin’s position on the Lord’s Supper has come to be known as the “spiritual presence” view. He pointed to verses like 1 Corinthians 10:16-18, which teach that the “cup of blessing” is “a participation in the blood of Christ” and “the bread we break” is “a participation in the body of Christ.” The word participation here is the Greek word “koinonia,” which is often translated “fellowship.” Paul seems to be describing something more than merely remembering Jesus. In the Lord’s Supper, through faith, we commune with Jesus as we reflect on all that the bread and the cup signify. In fact, he taught that by the Spirit, believers are lifted up to commune with the risen Christ. Today, the Southern Baptist Convention and many independent Baptist statements of faith reflect Zwingli’s memorialist position, while many Reformed Baptist churches hold to the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689, which affirms a view of the Lord’s Supper similar to Calvin’s. The Fellowship Affirmation of Faith [https://www.fellowship.ca/WhatWeBelieve] reflects this diversity, allowing for the spiritual presence view of Calvin while only explicitly affirming the memorialist position of Zwingli. It states: > The Lord’s Supper, or Communion, is the memorial wherein gathered believers partake of the two elements, the bread and the cup, which symbolize the Lord’s body and shed blood, proclaiming his death until he comes, and is a continuing means for strengthening the faith of the believer. Have you begun to treat the Lord’s Supper as a ritual, or do you examine yourself, approach it in faith, and reflect on Christ’s sacrifice? Have you thought about the Lord’s Supper as a “participation,” or fellowship, in the body and blood of Christ? Let these historic debates drive you back to the Scriptures to better understand what God has given us in the Lord’s Supper. In awe of Him, Paul