Skip to content

Tag Archives for gospel

The Problem with Pietists

Some of us who attended Sunday School as children will recall the song that goes,

Be careful little eyes what you see
Be careful little eyes what you see
The Father up above is looking down in love
So be careful little eyes what you see

Although I sang this song as a child, I don’t recall having any particular thoughts about it. However, I know people for whom this song brings back feelings of dread, and you can see why. While it presents itself as a nice, sweet little song and even says that God looks down “in love,” it has very ominous overtones, akin to Sting’s “Every Breath You Take.”

The message is clear: Don’t screw up, because God is watching and He’d be very, very disappointed. The song presents itself as loving, but it’s really intended to produce a sense of shame – and as many have unfortunately discovered, shame can be controlled (the reason behind anyone saying, “Shame on you!”).

Why do we do this to our children? For that matter, why do we still do this to ourselves? Here’s a dose of reality: If the only reason we aren’t doing something is because we know someone is watching, then we’re not really any holier than if we just went ahead and sinned. Wasn’t this Jesus’ point in Matthew 5? It’s not our actions so much as our desires. Certainly our actions have earthly consequences (which is reason for curbing certain damaging behavior), but spiritually speaking, it really doesn’t matter. If I hit you, I’ve both hurt you and committed a crime, and you could have me arrested for battery. If I only want to hit you, I can’t be charged with anything, but I’ve still committed a sin.

Pietists think that by managing sin-deeds, we become more holy. The truth is, when we let God love us, we become holy, and we don’t want to sin (or at least a little less than we did in the past; it is a process). Sin management doesn’t make people holy, it only makes them hypocrites.

Now, this doesn’t mean that what I will call “holiness reminders” aren’t helpful; holiness reminders are like the advice that Paul always gave in his letters – things like, “submit to each other” and “love is patient and kind, not arrogant or boastful.” These things remind us of our goal, that state of perfection that God is taking us to (and also make living with each other a lot easier), so we can do an internal check to see where we need to ask for God’s help.

Holiness is an act of grace, not of our will. As Paul wrote to the Galatians, “Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? (Gal. 3:3 NASB)” Our holiness comes to us through grace, through God’s empowering presence in our lives. In other words, it is the by-product of God’s love for us.

Questions:

  1. What were your experiences with guilt and shame as a child?
  2. What is your experience now? Are you still dealing with residual shame, or is someone in your life using religion to add to your shame burden?

Written on 30 July 2010 by me under This I know with 4 Comments
Tagged with , , , , ,

Forgiveness is an Investment

(cross-posted here)

A great post today from Molly Friesen at Route 5:9, Forgiveness is an Investment: What it Costs. She’s blogging through Paul Tripp’s book on marriage, What Did You Expect. This, and Linda’s prior post,  The Dark “Benefits” of Unforgiveness, are worth reading. I’m guessing Tripp’s book is, too.

It’s interesting that so many legalists forget about the rule of forgiveness, which is a key element in Jesus’ teaching. He even went so far as to say that if we don’t forgive, our Heavenly Father won’t forgive us, either.  Seriously – it’s at the end of the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6:

12 And forgive us our debts,
As we forgive our debtors.
13 And do not lead us into temptation,
But deliver us from the evil one.
For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.

14 “For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Now, you can try to take the position that this “is more of a guideline than a rule,” but Jesus doesn’t seem to give much leeway here.

So how does this fit into a theology of radical grace?

It fits quite well, actually, with a proper understanding of forgiveness.  As many of us were taught in Sunday School, Jesus dies for the sins of the world.

1 John 2:2: “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.  (NIV)

Jesus’ sacrifice was not made for us individually; forgiveness was truly once and for all.  If we refuse to acknowledge and participate in this forgiveness for someone who has wronged us, we are simply refusing to participate in God’s forgiveness. Being forgiven means we agree that everyone is forgiven. Refusing to forgive someone means we are closing our heart, not that God is withholding anything from us.

Now, do we forgive perfectly?  I seriously doubt it. I don’t think I do, even if it is my intent. But, God’s grace–God’s power made real in our lives–is sufficient for that, too.

We have been set free, not to sin, but so we can live–and forgive–freely.

Written on 14 July 2010 by me under The Gospel Uncensored with 5 Comments
Tagged with , , , , ,

It’s at the publisher!

(cross-posted from TheGospelUncensored.com)

Well, what seemed like a cycle of endless editing and rewrites has finally ended, and the manuscript, for better or worse, is at the publisher!  They tell me it looks great, and now are waiting for me to submit cover artwork, which I’ve asked my son (who else?) to work on.

I’m really looking forward to actually being able to hold it in my hands. And perhaps selling a few copies.

In the next day or two I will post a free excerpt. I’m looking forward to your responses!

————————-

Also, I’ve started a Facebook page for the book, so visit there and sign up!

Written on 27 May 2010 by me under The Gospel Uncensored with No Comments
Tagged with , , , ,

Book Update: More Work, New Title!

I am working on the final work on the book, after a very helpful editing job by Julia Loren.  Another couple of days and it should be off to the publisher.

At Julia’s suggestion (with concurrence by some other friends), the book is being renamed The Gospel Uncensored: How Only Grace Leads to Freedom.  Everyone seems to like this title much better, and I agree, it’s a bit more catchy, and ties in nicely with the “theme verse” for the book, Galatians 5:1 (It is for freedom that Christ has set us free).

Westbow is doing a Kindle edition.  I am studying up on formatting for e-publishing, and will at some point have a version out for Sony and the iPad, among other formats. These will probably be available from me directly, and Kindle and paper versions (both hard and soft cover) from Amazon, and paper editions also from Barnes & Noble online.

I will also be setting up a new website specifically for the book at TheGospelUncensored.com. Of course, stay tuned here for further updates.

Written on 13 May 2010 by me under The Gospel Uncensored with No Comments
Tagged with , ,

Shameless Self-Promotion

I’ve mentioned once or twice that I have a book coming out hopefully this summer. It is called Good News: Don’t you think Good News should be good news?, and is co-authored with Ken Blue. Ken actually preached the original sermon series most of the material came from; with Ken’s okay, I reworked and expanded the material quite a bit, while keeping it in Ken’s voice.

After sending it out to a few publishers (the few who don’t require agents), I learned that Thomas Nelson Publishers (the largest Christian publisher in the world, I believe) was just launching a self-publishing arm, Westbow Press. I was quite impressed with the services they offered, and while originally I had no interest in self-publishing, I became convinced this is what I wanted to do. This way I retain control and the rights. It will be available in both hard and softcover as well as a Kindle edition, and will be sold through Amazon, etc.  I’ll probably try to come up with an iPad version, and I’ve had a request for a Sony version, but haven’t checked into what that entails.

However, this also means I am responsible for editing, etc., which is a bigger job than you might realize, especially if you’re a sloppy writer, as I tend to be. Fortunately, my friend Julia Loren agreed to do a final edit for me, and I am anxiously awaiting the edited version from her this week so I can finish it up and get it to Westbow for their layout process. Also, they will design a cover that hopefully is better than what I’ve done here.

I’m pleased with the book. It will definitely be controversial, but then the real Gospel always is.  In the coming days, I’ll post a couple of “free samples” for your consideration.

Written on 28 April 2010 by me under The Gospel Uncensored with 1 Comment
Tagged with , , , ,

Review: The Naked Gospel

Last week I received a review copy of The Naked Gospel by Andrew Farley.  The text on the back begins, “Jesus plus nothing. 100% natural. No additives. It’s the truth you may never hear in church.”  As my regular readers know, I have my own book coming out in the next few months on the “Jesus plus nothing” Gospel, even using that exact phrase. So, as you may surmise, I was quite interested in what Farley had to say.

The book is not at all what I expected. Farley appears to be a fairly young guy, and the title and back cover text is fairly provocative. So, I expected something a bit edgy, or at least bold. However, on the whole I found it to be rather tame (possibly the work of an overly conservative editor?).  The book is a fairly quick read–even armed with a highlighter and stick-on tabs (my usual way to read non-fiction), it only took 2-3 hours to finish.

Bottom line, I agree with most of his conclusions, although I’m still on the fence about some of the ways he gets there. While I stay pretty close to Paul’s arguments in Galatians, Farley relies more heavily on Hebrews, which I found quite interesting. One of the problems for me is that Farley doesn’t necessarily “show his work;” that is to say, he doesn’t lay out all his thinking from point A to point B (the book itself seems a bit disorganized), and doesn’t always provide a lot of context for the verses he quotes. At least for me, reading many of his arguments left me scratching my head:

  • For example, his discussion of covenants is based on the Hebrews 9 passage, and he does not address Paul’s discussion of the Abrahamic covenant in Galatians. According to Farley, all covenants are like wills, not taking effect until the death of one of the parties. However, this is not the case with the Abrahamic covenant (and with other OT covenants), where death was not a requirement, but a penalty for not keeping the covenant. As the concept of a required death is important to Farley’s thinking, I would like to have seen Galatians brought into the discussion.
  • On pages 97 – 100,  he says that it takes zero sin to make us sinners. We are born sinners, without having sinned. However, while I think I know what he is trying to say, I disagree; I believe we are born with a nature that is defective, prone to sin. However, as Paul says, “all have sinned” and that is what makes us sinners.
  • He also seems to believe that Christians no longer sin; it is “sin” living in us that sins.
  • In pp 110-114, he tries to explain how our “flesh” is not our old self, nor is it our sinful nature.  I don’t think he succeeds.  I think “flesh” is simply acting out of human effort, rather than being the work of the Spirit. However, Farley says things like the flesh “is something that is with us, but it’s not us.”  He seems to be saying that Christians are automatically morally 100% pure, even though we often choose to follow the flesh (whatever it is) rather than the Spirit.  So, “living a life of dependency on the Spirit is really nothing more than being ourselves.”  Again, I think I know what he’s trying to say, but I don’t think he succeeds.
  • On p143, he states that Jesus’ death satisfied God forever, implying that he believes in a Calvinistic, wrathful God.  I don’t think it was God who had to be “satisfied.”
  • He explains the Lord’s Prayer (“forgive us as we forgive those…”) as being an Old Covenant prayer, no longer applicable.  While I would agree that much of Jesus’ preaching was indeed preaching the Old Covenant to show our need for a real savior, I have a different understanding of our need to forgive.
  • Finally, he tries to reconcile James with the rest of the NT by saying that “Faith involves a decision–a work,” so that faith without a decision to believe is a dead work.  I don’t think this works at all; rather, James seems to be talking about what Paul calls the fruit of the Spirit. Basically, if you’ve no fruit, you don’t have the Holy Spirit (and faith).

This isn’t to say that this isn’t a book worth reading; he does bring out a lot of good points that could be very helpful to a great many people.  And, as I said, I do agree with his basic conclusions:

  • Jesus took care of our sins, once for all.
  • The Gospel is that we are saved by Jesus, plus nothing else.
  • We live our lives by grace; again, Jesus plus nothing.

So, if readers only understand these points, the book has been worthwhile. However, I suspect that people will require some deeper study in order to be firmly grounded in these truths.

My book with Ken Blue, which comes out this summer, takes a considerably different approach, following Paul’s logic and structure in Galatians. Stay tuned for more information as to when it is to be released.

Written on 25 April 2010 by me under Reviews, The Gospel Uncensored with No Comments
Tagged with , , , , , ,

The (Unadjusted) Gospel

I just heard that a bunch of pastors and theologians—Baptists and Calvinists by the look of them—met together this week to reaffirm the Gospel.  I read through the site, but couldn’t find anything that tells me what exactly they were affirming, which is actually kind of surprising, although I’m not surprised at much anymore.

Coincidentally, this morning a friend sent me a link to the this:

Lutheran Toast

A Lutheran Toast

It seemed oddly appropriate.

Written on 16 April 2010 by me under Humor and/or Sarcasm, The Gospel Uncensored with 2 Comments
Tagged with , , , ,

A different gospel?

From a local church’s website, under “Beliefs:”

It is the will of God that each believer should be filled with the Holy Spirit and be sanctified wholly, being separated from sin and the world and fully dedicated to the will of God, thereby receiving power for holy living and effective service. This is both a crisis and a progressive experience wrought in the life of the believer subsequent to conversion.

I have a couple of questions about this.  First, what exactly does this statement mean? Do any of the members—or the leadership, for that matter—of this church really understand this?

Second, and more importantly, what exactly is wrong—or right—with this statement?

I checked, and this statement of faith comes directly from the denomination. I had hoped, then, that the local church ignored this point of faith (it’s been known to happen), but unfortunately this does not appear to be the case; it seems there are even people in leadership who are suffering under some pretty heavy burdens. It is truly sad.

I found it quite interesting that the denomination’s version includes footnotes with Bible references, specifically 1 Thessalonians 5:23,  Acts 1:8, and Romans 6:1–14, which must be twisted in order to support how this particular point of faith reads. I, at least, agree with the verses, but don’t agree at all with this item of belief. According to Paul, adding any attempt at human effort to the work of Christ totally eradicates the Gospel (I am finishing work on a book which should be out this summer that explains this in detail). Paul felt very strongly about protecting the simple truth of the gospel; I wonder how he’d respond to this church, seeing what he wrote to the Galatians:

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! (Gal. 1:6-9)

So, what is your opinion of this point of faith?  How would you react?

Written on 11 April 2010 by me under The Gospel Uncensored, Theological Musings with 10 Comments
Tagged with , , , ,

The New Judaizers

This morning I was flipping around the AM dial as I drove home from church. It’s kind of a sick practice of mine, wanting to hear what local pastors are preaching.  Often it just irritates me (but I have to point out that I always enjoy the sermons from a certain pastor named Randy).

Today on the way to church I had stopped on a certain station that I was not familiar with, so when I got back in the car this station was still on, and I caught this pastor (I’m assuming – there was no identification of either the speaker or church when it was over) in mid-sentence.

The speaker was going on about the pagan origins of Easter, which is nothing I haven’t heard before, and which I am still not impressed by.  He went on to criticize the early church (Eastern Orthodox), the Roman Catholics, Lutherans and Calvinists.  He then went on to say that Yeshua did not have a people; there were hundreds of denominations, but no “one people.”

Now, it began to get interesting.  He explained that the only way for there to be “one people” was for everyone to start following the Torah.  And, just to make sure that I hadn’t misheard him or misinterpreted what he said, he made sure that this was understood; Christianity was a Jewish religion, and following the Jewish Law confirms that we are indeed followers of Yeshua.  This also sets us apart from “the world.”  Indeed.  He rattled off a list of feasts and holy days we should be observing, but failed to mention where to find spotted goats or sheep for sacrifices…

When I got home I did a bit of research, trying to find out more about this guy. I figured he was some sort of Messianic Jew, due to his continued use of Hebrew names, etc.  The station turned out to be an “all Christian” station based here, whose purpose is “to network people, resources, needs, news, events, fellowships and ministries and  businesses in order to combine and multiply our resources, efforts and prayers.”

Or so they say.  Reading further, the website states,

We especially want to welcome those who are still fellowshiping in Christian churches who are seeking a deeper walk with Yahweh, the God of the Bible. Our theme verse is Rev. 12:17 – those who keep the commandments of Yah and the testimony of Yahshua/Jesus.

Alrighty, then.  I should mention that a number of non-Hebrew-oriented churches and ministries have shows on the station, or have placed ads on the site, or are otherwise mentioned somewhere on this site.  (It’s a really bad website design, too… but that’s another issue.)

I wonder, do they realize that this group’s (I still don’t know who they really are) goal is to Judaize Christian churches?  That is, they mean to convert grace-believing Christians into followers of the Torah. Or, at least those seeking “a deeper walk with Yahweh, the God of the Bible” (as opposed to the God of where?).

I wonder if these new Judaizers have ever read Galatians, or any of Paul’s other letters.  Let me quote from Galatians 1:

6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

So what do we say then about these very helpful, well-meaning folks?  What about “After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort (Gal 3:3)”?  Or, “All who rely on the Law are under a curse (v 10)?”  Paul challenges us to take a stand on the Gospel, and send false teachers packing down the road to Perdition.  It really bugs me that Christians think they are so holy when they quote, “don’t judge,” but they’ll stand by and watch the Gospel being flushed down the toilet.

You foolish Galatians!

Here’s the bottom line that Paul drew in his letter to the Galatians: If you add anything to Jesus – that is, any laws or traditions or eating kosher – you haven’t just missed the Gospel, you’ve trashed it completely! There is no middle ground, no “tolerance” when it comes to grace.

Now, you can going ahead and do all kinds of good works, because they’re good things to so.  Just don’t think you’re earning grace because of them. You are “good Christians” because Jesus was good, not because you are.  Think of it this way: Grace produces good works, works do not produce grace.

This little sermon today is the most blatant attack on the Gospel that I can recall hearing, and it makes me angry.  I’ve got a book about to be published (sometime this summer), tentatively called Free, that explains all this in far greater detail.  Check back in a month or two for more information on the book.

In the meantime, read Galatians, and be Free.

Written on 14 March 2010 by me under Church, Theological Musings with 4 Comments
Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

Support for the authenticity and authorship of the Gospel of John

From Heart, Mind, Soul, and Strength:

Of the four canonical gospels of the life of Christ, the one I have most often seen dismissed outright for historical value is the Gospel of John. The early church agreed that it was the latest written of the four. In the early church, the name attached to the gospel was that of John the Apostle. But scholars have found signs of editing; was it tampering? There is also clearly an appendix in Chapter 21 with multiple authors referring to themselves as “we” (John 21:24). Could anything refute the traditional attribution to John more clearly? Can anything in an altered document be trusted?

Interesting questions. Folks like Bart Ehrman and the pop atheists would answer, “no.”  But wait, there’s more…

This excerpt is from the Muratorian Canon, probably dated to the late 100′s A.D., commenting on how the fourth gospel came to be written:

“When his fellow-disciples and bishops encouraged him, John said, “Fast along with me three days from today, and whatever may be revealed to each, let us relate it one to another.” The same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that John in his own name should write down everything and that they should all revise it. (from the Muratorian Canon, likely dates ranging from 170 A.D. – 200 A.D based on internal evidence. Emphasis added.)”

The very early church, still in the 100′s, retained this information on how the fourth gospel came to be written, how it came to be edited, and why it has an appendix. One of the names of the editors is retained for us: Andrew the apostle, who was Simon Peter’s brother.

This is not the kind of scholarship that makes the secular Bible scholars happy.  Oh well…

Read the rest of the article here.

Written on 23 October 2009 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt with 1 Comment
Tagged with , , , , , , ,