If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

In Matthew 18:21-35, Jesus tells a parable about the importance of forgiveness.  The message – whatever someone has done against you cannot compare to the wrong that God forgives us for.  Since God is willing to forgive a debt we cannot pay, we need to forgive others.  That means, whatever transgressions have been committed against you, you are no longer willing to hold that against that person.  Forgiving means to release that person from the obligation.

If you are like me, you may not have to difficult a time forgiving others.  Yes, I have had wrong done to me.  But whatever wrong has been done, I just attribute to a product of human depravity.  It is not worth holding that against a person and besides, I take serious the judgment against me if I am unwilling to forgive.

There is another aspect of forgiveness that I think is harder, and that is forgiveness of self.  I have made many mistakes in my life, many misguided decisions that have left scars and wounds long after the events those decisions caused.  I cling to passages such Romans 8:1-4, Colossians 1:13-14; and Hebrews 10:11-14.   If this is you, seeing yourself as Christ sees you enables that forgiveness.

But there is yet an even harder aspect of forgiveness that I don’t think is expressed nearly enough or openly enough as it needs to be.  You see, we can forgive human action because humans are marred and can be hurtful, selfish, or disinterested in how their actions impact others.  While we may not be pleased with choices we have made, especially the ones that have had lasting negative consequences, we can also chalk mistakes up to fallibility and lessons learned.  But what happens when the person you are most grieved with is God?  After all, he is love, and just, and pure.  He is supposed to have the kindest of intentions towards his children.  He is suppose to be good.

I don’t think anyone that claims Christianity, wants to readily admit that they might be harboring resentment against God.  That seems so…sacrilegious? irreverent? disrespectful?  But I do believe it is possible to hold unforgiveness towards God,  unforgiveness that remembers situations where we felt he was supposed to do something but didn’t or not allow something that did happen.  These may be unanswered prayers, death of loved ones, personal loss, humiliation or other tragic circumstances.  It may not be openly expressed, but in the deepest recesses of our souls, is remembrance that is held in abeyance to be released when certain triggers are pulled.

How do we know if we harbor unforgiveness towards God?  I suspect, the same way that unforgiveness is expressed towards others.  The sense of injustice, the feelings of hurt, the remembrance of supposed wrong that entangles itself in responses to certain situations.  Or maybe, in the quiet stillness, when thoughts of injustice impede progress to pray, to worship, to move forward, to let go.   There might be that sense of unrequited love, that sense of rejection for having put a good effort forward only to have it recoiled in return.  The heart sinks, burns, saddens and cries out “God, how could you?”

But unforgiveness is a prison.   The same torment that Jesus predicted for that unforgiving king in Matthew 18, is the same torment experienced when the heart harbors unforgiveness, including unforgiveness towards God.  It holds you captive and wraps you up in a cacophony of pity, pain and unrelenting desire to see a reversal of supposed misfortunes.  Unforgiveness towards God will disable the ability to see him for who he truly is.

Forgiveness requires a release of obligation for retribution.  No, I don’t think anyone would say they wanted retribution towards God.  But not allowing the heart to freely give, freely worship and freely yield probably has the same effect.  The release of obligation for retribution does not impose upon God requirements for him to correct situations or move in a way that would vindicate our sense of justice.  It is an acknowledgment that God in his sovereignty is working out a plan that is far greater than our finite minds can comprehend, even when holding out hands empty of satisfactory results.  Forgiveness enables trust.

So if this is you and you are holding unforgiveness towards God, please consider that the only person it is hurting is yourself.  He is good, though at times that goodness is misunderstood and not evidentialy seen.  Forgiving God is essential for moving forward in the Christian life and release from a harsh and unrelenting prison of torment.

If you’re like me, you have probably heard spirituality expressed in many different ways, both from Christians and non-Christians alike.  Many non-Christians will make the claim that while they don’t believe in Christ, or religion for that matter, that they are spiritual.  Christians will make distinctions about what is or is not spiritual.

Spirituality is sourced in the work of the Holy Spirit.  Being spiritual means we are of the Spirit.  The spirit of man is connected with immaterial part of us that gives us life, will, emotions, and thoughts.  It is our heart, soul and mind.  Apart from God, man’s spirit is dead in sin and cannot respond to God properly  (Ephesians 2:1-3; 1 Corinthians 2:14).  This person is not of the Spirit.  This is why I believe an unbeliever cannot be spiritual – existential or experiential maybe – but not spiritual.

Therefore, it necessitates understanding the work and purpose of the third person of the trinity in relation to the believer.  We are unable to accept God’s gift of salvation without the work of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:3).  He baptizes into the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:26) and resides within the believer a mark they are God’s (Romans 8:9). The Holy Spirit gives gifts to every believer to be used for his purpose (1 Corinthians 12:6-7). He brings the ministry of Christ and the presence of God into our being (John 15:26) so that we may walk out a life that increasingly represents that connection into our lives – in thought, word and deed.

With the Holy Spirit residing in the believer, being spiritual means the believer is following after the spirit instead of the flesh because the two are opposed (Galatians 5:16-17).  The flesh here is not our physical bodies but it is a that nature endemic in humanity that opposes God and does not want to subject thoughts, words, or actions to him (Romans 8:7).  Being spiritual is opposite of carnality, which is allowing the flesh to dominate.  We are being carnal when we allow our thoughts, words and actions to mold themselves after that nature of flesh that wants to put us first instead of God, so that the ministry of Christ is not the predominating motive for us.  This is why Paul told the Corinthian church they were being carnal (1 Corinthians 3:1-4).

However, I believe many have turned the idea of being spiritual into an esoteric concept that divorces thoughts towards God from the reality of living in a physical universe in a physical body.  Spirituality becomes some type of mysticism that opposes the elements of reason and participation in culture.  It treats the material world as evil.  It becomes a way of attaining to a higher secret knowledge that others do not have.   But that is not spirituality it is gnosticism, which is based on ancient Greek philosophy of dualism whose fruits led to heretical ideas about Christ in the early church.  Nor is spirituality putting a God or church label on everything and dismissing what doesn’t have it as non-spiritual.  Spirituality is not just doing ministry; ministry can be carnal.  Spirituality is not separating from the world we live in and creating our own subculture but it is endeavoring to live in that world to bring Christ to it.  That is the purpose of allowing the Holy Spirit control of our lives.

Being spiritual means we are allowing the control of the Holy Spirit in our lives so that in all we do, points others to Christ.  Being spiritual means we are allowing the the gifts of the spirit to be used in a manner that glorifies God.  It means we are not allowing ourselves to be dominated by a system of thought that puts us and our desires at the center of the universe.  Being spiritual impacts all of our material and immaterial faculties so that Christ is represented in every area of our lives.  Being spiritual means that we can use reason and intellect in a way that puts God at the center of our thoughts instead of flesh. Being spiritual is maintaining an unbroken fellowship with God in the midst of a broken and fallen world while not allow its system of thought to motive our thinking.

So if we are performing our secular jobs in a way that glorifies God, that is spiritual.  When we sacrifice our time for the work of ministry, that is spiritual.  When we use our intellect to learn and understand more about our faith, that is spiritual.  When we make a choice towards God and away from ourselves, that is spiritual.

In his book, He That is Spiritual, Lewis Sperry Chafer says this

The spiritual life is not passive.  Too often it is thus misjudged and because of the fact that one, to be spiritual, must cease from self-effort in the direction of spiritual attainments and learn to live and serve by the power God has provided.  True spirituality knows little of “quietism”.  It is life more active, enlarged and vital because it is energized by the limitless power of God…Living in unrealities is a source of hindrance to spirituality.  Anything that savors of a “religious pose” is harmful.  In a very particular sense the one who has been changed from the natural to the spiritual sometimes needs to be changed to a naturalness again, meaning of course, a naturalness of manner and life.  The true spiritual life presents a latitude sufficient to allow us to live very close to all classes of people without drawing us from God.  Spirituality hinders sin, but should never hinder the friendship and confidence of sinners….True spirituality is an adorning.  It is most simple and natural and should be a delight and attraction to all. (Chafer, pp 140-141).

I think Dr. Chafer makes some good points about being spiritual.   I highly recommend reading his book.

A friend and regular commentor here, Scott Lenke, posted this on Theologica.  I thought it raised some interesting questions.

I would love to hear your thoughts

Speaking from a protestant perspective, the Holy Bible is the final authority for faith and practice.  Moreover, it is God’s ultimate communication to us.  However, there are a number of Christians who struggle with reading the Bible.  In fact, you might be one of them and find it difficult to engage with on an in-depth and consistent level.  Now, I confess, I have always enjoyed reading the Bible .  But even in my zeal, I have found dry times.  As I contemplate various reasons for the ennui based on observations of others and many conversations as well as my own life experiences, I think that one or more of these reasons could account for it.

1.  Lack of Understanding: for some, reading the Bible is like the reading comprehension portions on standardized tests, the kind that includes a bunch of technical terms, themes and conclusions that are hard to decipher.  Who wants to read something they don’t understand?  I think the contributing factor to this difficulty is not understanding what the Bible is, how it was put together, the different genres, the progression of God’s revelation, the major themes and the correlation of how all the books fit together.  When people are told to just read the Bible and don’t have an understanding of what they are reading, its like picking up a puzzle piece and trying to make sense of the whole picture.   This is an essential component of the discipleship process yet, I fear that might be missing in a great many churches.   Good Bible study methods are needed for understanding.

Now I am of the opinion that the Bible is meant to be understood and can be understood by all (although not all will accept the message).  The Bible is a divine book, in that it is inspired by God, but it is also written by human authors who were using normal means of communication.  Therefore, reading each book according to its literary genre and particular place in God’s overall program is important.

Remedy: If this describes you, get a hold of some instructive material that will aid understanding how the Bible is put together.  Some basic resources that I have found useful for this task is,

• How to Study the Bible for Yourself, by Tim Lahaye
• Living by the Book, by Howard Hendricks
• What the Bible is All About, by Henrietta Mears

2.  Lack of Relevance: if the reason we find the Bible boring is that it just doesn’t seem to applicable to our lives, we will get bored.  Especially, when reading Numbers!  This will happen if we are approaching the Bible to find solutions to our problems and will only be interested if what can solve the problems we face.  However, while the Bible was written for us, it was not written to us.  The Bible is God’s revelation and provides a description of his plan for history.  Understanding his plan should give a great deal of meaning to understand his heart and how we fit into that plan.

Remedy: if this is you, start approaching the Bible to learn about God and his overall program for history.  Always ask with each reading how what you are reading is relevant to his program rather than our personal program.

3.  Too Impatient: We live in a micro-wave culture.  We want understanding and we want it now.  While I do contend that understanding what the Bible is communicating is possible, studying takes time.  Understanding how each part fits together takes time.  It involves a consistent and diligent effort.  The use of study tools, like commentaries, can seem like it slows the process down but are valuable for the understanding process. In the end, it is about understanding and I am of the opinion that the more we understand, the greater our interest will be to learn more. Continue Reading »

As a Christian, I would love to have a magic wand.  I would wave it like the fairy godmother did in Cinderella and make obstacles that impede my spiritual progress to magically disappear.  Poof!  Now they’re gone, all the nagging doubts, issues from my past that seem to crop up in certain situations, pain that inhibits a full surrender and old habits that die hard.  Wave the magic wand, and its all gone.  Poof! Poof! Poof!  And now I can truly and fully worship God.

Unfortunately, I see this magic wand syndrome applied to Christianity but in different forms and utilizing different language.  No one would cite it as waving a magic wand, but the reality of the formulas that are used to strengthen the sanctification process are in essence applying the same goal.  Do this, and you no longer have to worry about whatever it is that is challenging your commitment to Christ.  Do this, and you will have no problem at all worshipping God.

What are these formulas?  One is leaving our problems at the altar and setting at the feet of Jesus.  There are even altar calls to do just that.  Another formula is worship.  Some suppose that if we worship God hard enough, he will come and wave the magic wand and make all our problems disappear.   Unfortunately, it is based on a misunderstanding of Psalm 22:3, that God shows up when corporate praise is offered, with an expanded version indicating that worship then becomes warfare and an instrument to de-shackle whatever has challenged forward progress.  These are magic wands and I think yields a disconcerting blow to the sanctification process and disengages from the reasons we choose self over God.

Please do not misunderstand me.  I am not saying that we don’t bring our burdens, conflicts, sinful pulls and challenges to the Lord in prayer.  Of course we do, as Peter commends in 1 Peter 5:7.  Nor am I dispelling the need for worship, both individually and corporately.  But the problem comes when we use these methods as formulas that are disconnected from the source of scriptural based sanctification and moreover, render troubled promises of spiritual maturity based on these formulas and expectations of devotion towards God.

The reason these formulas don’t work in and of themselves is because it negates the substance of sanctification and the necessary components to promote spiritual maturity.  It does not happen overnight.  Sanctification is a tedious and messy process that can become discouraging at times.   It is a process where obstacles confront spiritual progress, self-focused thoughts confront Biblical truth,  flesh confronts spirit.  And there are failures; at times lots of failures.  It doesn’t work itself out through sheer will or because we’ve raised our hands in worship.

When a person becomes a Christian, there is a natural opposition to this and its called “flesh”.  The flesh wants its own way and continue to dominate thoughts, motives and deeds. It does not want to be subject to God’s requirements (Romans 8:7).  It does not drop off when we become Christians and will seek to hinder us at every turn.  Moreover, the Christian has a ready-made enemy upon conversion that hates God, his program and his people.  He will do whatever he can to frustrate any steps towards spiritual maturity.

So what does the Christian do?  I believe Romans 12:1-2 provide a great model for the sanctification process, which hinges on two important criteria: 1) offering ourselves and 2) being transformed through a mind renewal.  Worship, according to Romans 12:1-2, is when we avert our affections from self and place them on God.  This requires a transformation of thinking. We will only invest ourselves in Christianity to the extent of the value we have placed on the benefits of following Christ.  Our worship is motivated by this investment.  It unfolds based on how we think about God and his expectations for us.  That does not happen because we engage in a corporate congregational service but unfolds through the realization of the object of faith and worship, which is the triune God.

This is where I think the teaching of doctrine is critical.  Doctrine is not a dry, intellectual subject for academic oriented people but is a necessity for spiritual growth.  Doctrine is teaching and Christian doctrine provides the tenets of why we follow Christ.  To the extent that learning about the nature, character and work of the God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit is to the extent that we will avert our affections towards him and away from the obstacles that would impede progress.  The more we learn about Him, his plan for history, his expectations for his people, both corporately and individually, the stronger the impetus should be to direct decisions in his favor and away from selfish desires.

Discipleship is learning.  An ignorant saint who raises their hands in corporate worship is still an ignorant saint who will quickly yield to fleshly desires given the opportunity.  I do believe there are times when desires and ingrained sinful habits are removed.  But the overwhelming evidence in both scripture and real life, is that we must engage in an intentional process whereby the Holy Spirit is increasingly relied upon and Christ becomes a greater focus of our affections.  In this way, we learn to discern what is fitting for spiritual maturity. This is aptly summed up in Hebrews 5:14 – “but solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trainded to discern good and evil“.

The bottom line is that sanctification does not happen overnight.  It takes engaging in a continual learning process and wrestling with impediments to the Christian walk to the point where discernment of what is right and pleasing towards God is increasingly realized.  That will motivate decisions when confronted with decisions of self vs. God.  Moreover, it will motivate pure worship, from the heart that should increasingly place its affection towards God.  There is no magic wand, only lives making the choice to surrender wholly to God although at times, those choices falter.

But the beautiful thing about that is, as Paul points out in Philippians 2:12-13, that as we walk out the sanctification process, that God is at work in us, both to work and will for his good pleasure.  His grace is sufficient and his remedy through the cross is permanent, offering endless access to his throne of grace where we can find help in our time of need (Hebrews 4:16).

If you’re like me, you’ve been told there are different types of reading plans for the Bible.  There are time when we crack open all the study aids and decipher what’s going on.  Then there is the devotional reading, where you just read and let the passage speak to you.  Therefore, it is common to have a time set aside for just devotional reading and a time set-aside for some serious, academically oriented studying.  I have accepted this polarized approach for years but lately have come to find some problems with it.

This morning was a perfect illustration.  I try to read at least one Psalm in the morning as part of devotional time.  However, I got hung up on a passage this morning in Psalm 39.  I was having trouble deciphering what exactly the author was getting at, especially in vs. 5 and the “handbreath”.  My initial inclination was to not bother with any commentaries because after all, it was devotional reading and in devotional reading you just let the passage speak to you. The problem was that I really needed to understand what it was saying, so I did some research.  One commentator explained the context and the chiastic structure and the meaning of “handbreadth” in Hebrew.  I was relieved.  Not only that, but the greater clarity gave the passage more significance because as it resonated with some deeply personal challenges I have experienced.  It prompted worship. And it also clarified for me why I have a problem with this polarized approach to scripture.

For the Christian, the whole point of studying scripture is to understand the very revelation of God and his ultimate revelation in Christ.  The Bible is God’s self-disclosure as he has exposed himself and his plan for history through the pens of human authors.   God’s plan of redemption and reconciliation to mankind, is the overriding messages that coalesces the diversity of genres and the seemingly disjointed eras into a unified whole.  Therefore, reading the Bible is not just for information purposes but is expressly designed to make an impact on the lives of those have placed faith in the salvation that Christ offers.   Those authors were writing with a particular purpose as they record events, narratives, poems, letters under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, all to unveil the overriding message of Christ.   That message speaks volumes but it must be understood in light of how the authors intended it.  I have been dragging my tail on a post about authorial intent hermeneutics and the importance of meaning, which will provide more detail on the subject (hopefully I now have the incentive to get off my duff and finish it!).  But suffice it to say that understanding what we are reading is significant.  Moreover, it is to understand where the Christian fits into that plan and how to apply what is learned so that our lives are transformed by the very words we read.

I think you lose something with the design and application of scripture by creating this dichotomy.  On one hand, reading with the intention of academic study can circumvent the application of scripture and associate studying with anti-spiritual activity.  This type of reading can be considered less spiritual.  On the other hand, reading devotionally can create a false sense of meaning upon scripture because we may not be fully engaged with where the author is coming from.  It also can give the false impression that you are engaged in a spiritual activity simply because you’re not bogged down with investigation or that devotional reading is somehow more spiritual.

An academically oriented investigation of scripture and Biblical theology  need not be devoid of the spiritual significance of God’s revelation.  In fact, I would argue that it intensely spiritual thing to do to gain as much understanding as possible, which builds the foundation for Christ-centered spirituality.  I have discovered that even the most academically oriented study can be transformed into an intense devotional.  I have this especially true with Greek.  The learning process is tough as the mechanics of the language are learned.  But those same mechanics compel the force of the original language to illustrate what God would have us to know.  It does not have to stop at just learning the information but should be followed up with deep reflection about what the information means.  The same is true for studying theology proper or an intense investigation into scriptural analysis and background studies.  More information should lead to more understanding, which should create a greater heart impact, which should lead to more worship.  It is all in how the information is applied not the fact that you have more information.

On the flipside, if we just pick up the Bible and read along for devotional value and not be concerned with authorial intent, we can really miss what the author is trying to get at.  Even worse, we can derive a misunderstanding of what the author is communicating through a self-focused desire to have our heart impacted, without reconciling our understanding with that of the authors’ and especially the context.  I recall a time I used to do this with the Old Testament prophets and wanted God to speak to me personally.  A lot of misunderstanding was developed because of that and to this day it is continually being unraveled.  How rich and rewarding that correction process has been!

Now, I am not saying that every reading session needs to treated like a seminary course.  But I do think there is a danger in pitting one type of study against the other, as if one type of reading precludes the other.  If we are seeking to know about God on his terms, it is all spiritual.  In that way, every study session should be devotional.

I may be alone in not wanting to have two different kind of reading programs.  But the thought of God condescending to make Himself known, really encourages me to strive as best as possible to understand what is meant by what is being communicated.  In this we who call Christ savior and king, come to know and understand His heart, which should open ours and bow down in worship.

“Give me understanding, that I may observe Your law and keep it with all my heart.” (Psalm 119:34)

The more I study and discuss theology, the more I realize that passionate discussions concerning diversities of positions can quickly grow into the necessity of proving the point regardless of the discussion’s redemptive value.   When disagreements abound, I am increasingly asking the question of how significant it is and is it worth proving the point.  This of course is gauged by what is essential vs. non-essential, as Michael’s post here describes.  As I seek to gain discernment regarding picking my battles, I thought of adopting this modification of the Serenity Prayer as a guide in theological discussions

Lord, grant me the serenity to humbly accept the theological inconsistencies that do not make a difference

The courage to graciously challenge the ones that do

And the wisdom and knowledge to know the difference

Let’s learn to pick our battles folks.  Like Kenny Rogers said, “you gotta know when to hold em, and know when to fold em”

Unless you have lived in a cave or otherwise have no access to any type of media, you are aware of Brit Hume’s comments to Tiger Woods that he ought to turn to Christianity since it offers the the forgiveness and redemption he needs for his transgressions.  Naturally, the comment sparked a firestorm, particularly from non-Christians who deemed the comment offensive to other religions and came across as arrogant, superior and narrow minded.  As a follower of Christ, the backlash should not surprise me, although I was reluctant to write this for that reason.

However, the more I think about what Hume stated, the more I objectively have to avow his statement concerning what Christianity offers.  I am not taking a position on the appropriateness of the comment on secular television, although I do applaud his courage.  But the fact is that there are unique claims to Christianity that no other belief system offers and to state those claims is simply demonstrating truth in advertising.  It is not superior, just factual.

The fact of Christianity is that God the Son, who always existed as God, became human but was fully God and fully man.  He came specifically to make reparations through death by taking upon himself the guilt and condemnation that is imposed upon each individual.  His resurrection seals that transaction and provides eternal life for those who would place their faith in what he has done.   His payment for sin relieves the believer of their requirement to be judged before God for it.  It is a free gift, offered to those who would accept it.   It’s not something we work for, our attain to higher levels or empty ourselves to get.  That is the claim of Christianity with features that are unique to it.  So to say, there is something that is not offered in another belief system is truthful.  What other belief system offers forgiveness of sin based on God himself coming down from heaven to take the payment upon himself so that the one who believes will be absolved of the guilt, without any work on their part?  There isn’t.

We do this all the time with consumer products.  We would not hesitate to advertise a unique deal.  It would be like Consumer A saying they know of a market where you can get product X for $10 and Consumer B indicating that the same product can be purchased for $5.  But if Consumer C says, they know of a place that is giving the product away and all one has to do is got there to get it.  Would not the Consumer C offer something, the others don’t?  That is truth in advertising.  Now Consumers A and B may not believe Consumer C, but that does not diminish the fact that Consumer C claims to offer something the others don’t.

So were Hume’s comments denigrating to Buddhism?  Or was he simply just stating the factual and unique claim of Christianity?  Moreover, perhaps it should give the believers in Christ incentive to readily and willingly advertise Christianity’s unique claim.

This post will probably raise more questions than provide answers, but the title is something I have been reflecting on lately.  It seems to me and especially in conservative evangelical circles, that ministries involved in the provision of services designed to address social deficiencies can likely get labeled as promoting a social gospel.  Maybe I am wrong about this but I know that I myself have made this connection.

The social gospel is a product of the liberal branch of Christianity that considers the main function of Christ’s earthly ministry to demonstrate humanitarian compassion and justice.  For those who deny the deity of Christ or his divine representation as the continuation of God’s story, Jesus was a man who taught what encapsulates the love of God and his desire for mankind to be the recipients of kind acts and social justice.   The supporter of the social gospel would contend that Scripture has demonstrated God’s concern for the down trodden and oppressed, and the correct response to demonstrate Christian virtues are to address the needs of society’s unfortunates.  In this way we love God by loving what he cares about.

The typical conservative evangelical response is that the gospel is built on the work and person of Jesus Christ, whose incarnation fulfills Old Testament prophecy.  His sacrificial death, burial and resurrection provides the means by which man can be reconciled to God.  In this way, God demonstrated his love for humanity, by sending his own Son and subjecting him to a brutal death.  This  consummates his story of redemption that his previous system of Mosaic regulation alluded to but now provides a permanent mechanism for salvation, appropriated to those who would believe.

Therefore, Jesus’ earthly ministry must be considered in context of his redemptive purpose.  When he addressed issues of social injustice and reached out towards those who had been rejected by society, it was not so much for the purpose to show acts we should emulate but a consideration of God’s redemptive program, such as:

• God’s discontentment with the Jews that were more concerned with the mechanics of the Law than with compassion and justice
• God was changing who was eligible for covenant promises and blessings – Gentiles would now be incorporated in as the people of God and those deemed unworthy could inherit these promises.
• God was changing how one would obtain covenant promises and blessings – through belief in his Son
• Jesus was demonstrating that he was fulfilling the Law (e.g., healing on the Sabbath, cleansing the leper)

Even in the book of Amos, which proponents of a social gospel would promote as God’s concern for social justice, the overall picture is that the grievance was covenant infractions and not transgressions against lower classes, per se.

In general, it is not that conservative evangelicals are dismissive of the social needs (or shouldn’t be), but that they are not equivalent to the purpose of the gospel, which is to proclaim Christ as savior and God, who provides redemption from sin for those who would believe in him.  Good humanitarian works cannot fulfill this salvific purpose nor be confused with the content of it.

However, I am not so sure that the conservative response should negate the need for addressing social concerns or necessarily tag ministries that are predominantly engaged with the provision of social programs or care as ones who promote a social gospel.  While I wholeheartedly agree that Jesus’ earthly ministry must be considered in context of his redemptive purpose, I don’t think the parameters should just be confined to the spiritual redress he came to correct. God is concerned with the total person and not just the state of our souls.  Moreover, I believe that Jesus’ earthly ministry demonstrated that people do have tangible needs and are apt to have a more positive response, when those tangible needs are met.

Given the typical conservative evangelical paradigm for Christianity, I think there is a tendency to spiritualize faith in Christ so that tangible needs are of secondary importance to spiritual ones.  I think many may feel that it is ok if we preach the gospel but not concern ourselves with any physical deficiencies that people may face.  I’m afraid I have confronted this attitude even amongst Christians, that walking by faith is far more important than having something tangible support that faith.  Maybe that’s why James had to tell the church that if we do not address the physical needs of our brothers and sisters but dismiss them with some exhortive word, there is a question if faith is indeed real (James 2:15-17).   James knew what I believe Christ demonstrated, that people have real needs.

I am not in favor of substituting humanitarian works for a clear message of redemption but neither do I think we can dismiss addressing social needs as carriers of that message.  I think Scripture has very much has demonstrated that social injustice is a reflection of the fallenness of humanity and something God cares deeply about because in the end, it is about the people he created.   And people need to know that they matter, especially the ones who seem to have gotten the short end of society’s stick.

So does doing social good equal a social gospel?  In some cases it might but it does not necessarily have to be the case.  But I do know that people have very real needs and to quote a very common cliche “we might be the only Jesus they know”.  What better way to demonstrate the gospel we espouse and possibly garner a better response to it by showing that we do indeed care about the people that God created.

Recently, I had the opportunity to deliver a 15-minute sermon at a preaching lab that is part of a Student Fellowship that I am affiliated with on campus.  Once a month, 2 students are given the opportunity to preach, encourage fellow students and get critiqued by an alumnus with several years preaching experience.  So in November, I got a chance.  While I was preparing the message, I thought about the fact that I wasn’t using some type of personal story in the introduction.  There was so much in the text to deal with (I was using 2 Chronicles 20:1-12), I only had 15 minutes and I wanted to make sure I covered the points I was wishing to draw out in the text.  All I needed to do was set up the context, or so I thought. Of course, the one critique I received from Kevin (the evaluator), is that he would have appreciated a better introduction with some type of story.  Another classmate, encouraged me with the same point indicating that while he and I were people that didn’t necessarily need that type of introduction, most people need to hear some type of personal connection in order to engage with the topic.

Flash forward to the this past week.  This came across my radar a few days ago – a personalized Bible where you can insert your name into the text where personal pronouns are present.   Here is the caption

Have you ever inserted your name as you read the Bible to make it more personal? Now you can experience the reality of God’s love and promises in a way you never thought possible. In the Personal Promise Bible, you will read your first name personalized in over 5,000 places throughout the New Testament with Psalms and Proverbs, over 7,000 places throughout the complete Old and New Testaments.

Why the need to do this?  Why is it that we can only experience the promises of God’s love by personalizing the Bible?  Why is the Biblical text only relevant unless there is a personal interest?

I hate to say this, but I’m afraid that we have engaged in a form of Christianity that is only meaningful as long as we are personally impacted by it.  We have accommodated me-centered theology because we long for the personal touch.   That desire in our souls for a personal touch from God for Him to fill every nook and crevice has translated into rampant subjectivism that focuses how we are impacted by the Bible, by theology and by the learning process.  I think its why Bible study is only meaningful if it makes a personal impact on us, why learning can create this imaginary disconnect from our head and heart.  Who wants to just let the Bible say what is says?  Who wants dry intellectual learning, boring systematic theology books and commentaries that will assist in arriving at reasoned understanding of the Biblical text when you can have life application versions that get right to that personal impact?    We want love, we want feelings, we want joy, we want God.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that we should not be impacted personally by God and learning about Him.  I am not saying that faith should involve a lack of emotions.  God did reach down to make himself known, to reconcile lost people to Himself, to make those who were spiritually dead alive in Christ and incorporated into His family.  The indwelling of the Holy Spirit ought to infuse every believer with the reality of the presence of God.  It should inspire awe in every believer that God invites us to participate in His plan and program.  That truth most assuredly will evoke a range of emotions and automatically captivate personal interests.

But that is just it: it is His plan and program and the central focus is Christ, not us.  I’m afraid that quest to personalize Christianity has pried it away from the central focus.  God has condescended to reveal Himself to humanity, with the ultimate revelation in Christ.  He has provided a means to communicate His message to His people.   The Bible expresses His heart, His story, His plan.   Learning what the Biblical text is saying is learning about Him.  And there is a danger in jumping too fast to the personal impact such as the personalized Bible.  We’ll miss the significance of collective nature of God’s promises delivered specifically to Israel and God’s program established in the church.

We can’t bypass learning about God that is centered in His revelation to get to a personal impact nor should we insist that there be some personal connection in order for us to participate in the learning process.  We have to learn about God about Him on His terms.  This entails understanding how God revealed Himself progressively by understanding the layout of the Bible, understanding the major themes and correlations.  We must understand proper Bible study methods to derive the meaning of the text as the author intended it.  Bypassing the investigative process to get directly to personal application and engaging only if it means something to us not only circumvents learning about what God has provided, but, I dare say, is a rather selfish thing to do.

Take Michael’s example in this post about the husband or boyfriend that did not care to know anything about the woman, but just wanted to love her.  Now suppose that same woman, in expressing her love for this man, wrote him letters so that he could get to know her better.  She describes her past, her passions and plans.  She lets him know all about her.  What if he just read the letters in a way he wanted that assured maintaining his same level of feelings about the girl?  He might skim over the confusing information, reject the difficult information, and maybe impose his own meaning of what she intended.  He is only interested in hearing what will make him tingle.  He just wants to love her and feel good about the relationship.  Would that not be selfish on his part?  He has made the relationship all about him.

Friends, I’m afraid that this is exactly what we do with the insistence of personal interests – we maintain a self-focused interest in an eternal program that is not about us although we do have the immense privilege to participate in it.  It is a program that should motivate learning as much as we can, loving as much as we can, and serving as much as we can, whether we are personally impacted by it or not. 

As one who takes great care in understanding what God has communicated on His terms, I have discovered the beautiful thing  is just how personal God really is.