Going back to Seminary produces mixed feelings in me. Seminary has been so crucial to my spiritual growth this past year, but the school that I study at is also very conservative. I have to look a certain way (even in the gym there is a dress code), think a certain way (premillennial dispensational), and hold certain political/social views (usually conservative republican). Basically I have to toe the party line and keep the status quo. This is not a necessarily bad thing, it’s a part of being in a community. In the church the “we” is bigger than the “me.” This means that I have to be extra careful in the way I dress, speak, write, blog, etc. Often I have to remain silent on topics that mean so much to me. I have to be careful with the discussions I have with my classmates, I don’t want to pick fights. My prayer is to be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to anger. (Please do not misunderstand, I love my school, but I don’t agree with everything. In this post, my goal is not cynicism, but authenticity).

Recently I was talking to a friend who four years ago had been accepted to my school. She was given a free ride and also the option of living off of campus (something that usually never happens,) but she refused. As we were talking, the reason why she refused unraveled. As I shared my love for my school, community and professors, my words resonated with her when I began to talk about the rigidity. It was because of the school’s rigidity, ultimately, that she decided not to study there (I think at that time dancing and any alcohol whatsoever was prohibited, even for professors. I’m not sure if it’s still prohibited).

After that conversation I was riding my bike contemplating our words and Gandhi’s idea of “loving Christ, but not Christians.” And I realized that Christians can come across as nitpicky and ultra-sensitive. Their love can be perceived as conditional because it is only given if you dress, think, vote or write like them. I think this might be one of the reasons why Gandhi felt the way he did toward Christians. (Actually when he was in South Africa he did meet Christians, but he was turned off by their exclusivity. Gandhi was greatly influenced by Christ and he lived out Christ’s words through nonviolence, but he did not like Christians, pretty ironic).

And yet just because a majority of Christians are judgmental, does not mean all Christians are. For example, if Bob judges Jane for the way she dresses and Bob is a Christian, does that mean that all Christians will judge women based on dress code? (Hopefully not).  The problem, however, isn’t Christ, but Bob; the problem isn’t the message, but the messenger. People see Christians and think Christianity is hogwash that creates judgmental bigots and two-faced hypocrites. But that is not true, Jesus Christ embraced all types of people and he sternly rebuked hypocrisy. He taught us to love our enemies, that leaders must serve and that forgiveness is crucial. If people knew the beauty of Christ, it would rock their world. Jesus is the embodiment of both grace and truth and God is love.

The problem is not Christ, the problem is me, the person, the interpreter, the communicator. We often have screwed up pictures of the Bible, gospel, God and the church. Then we impose our personal interpretations on those around us. This causes excruciating pain and broken relationships, which fly in the face of the greatest commandment Jesus gave us in Matthew 22:36-40,

“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Do Gandhi’s words resonate with you? Have you been hurt by Christians? What has your experience with Christians been like?

― Søren Kierkegaard, Either/Or: A Fragment of Life

It’s not what you do but how you do it

I’m a vegan. I don’t eat meat or dairy 98% of the time. Sometimes, I eat a little bacon if I really crave it or have milk in my coffee every other blue moon. But for the most part I don’t. And a lot of people have given me flack about it. They ask:

“Where do you get your protein?

Isn’t that unhealthy?

Won’t you wither up and die?

God told Peter to kill and eat all the animals.”

It’s as if, once I share my dietary habits everyone gets defensive about theirs. But everyone has a right to choose how they eat. I’m not writing this to persuade everyone to become vegan, but to say that veganism is also a viable health option.

Let me preface this by saying there is a threshold of health. For example, don’t eat mayonnaise all day or smoke a pack all day. There are basic health practices that should be met, eat your veggies, fruit, exercise, sleep well, get sun, etc. But on the topic of specific daily nutrition there are various opinions from all carbs, to no carbs, to all fruit, to no fruit, to no meat to paleo (which recommends a lot of meat). I can find healthy people who are not vegan and I can find people who are vegan, but only eat potato chips, french fries and oreos (which are vegan.) So the deciding factor is not whether to eat meat or not. The question is not to eat nuts or not. A  panda eats bamboo all day and they’re fat; cows eat grass all day and they are huge. (The problem is they don’t exercise.) Basically I write this long intro about health to say: It’s not what you eat; it’s how you eat. And this is applicable to life. It’s not about what you do, but how you do it.

The importance of the subjective 

I love Kierkegaard’s advice at the top of the page “do it or do not do it; you will regret both.” Kierkegaard also says something along the lines of, “Decision and action are motivated by values, not by facts. No fact by itself can motivate and action. A fact can be the pretrext for action only in the context of values.”

This is something I often wonder about. There is a huge gap between knowledge and action. We all know Diabetes 2 is diet-controlled. We know that cookie or that ciagarette is bad for us, but we still do it. We know that guy is not good for us and that getting $40,000 in debt for school with a degree that does not guarantee a job is not good. We know what we should do. We should sleep earlier, eat less, go on fb less, read more, walk more, exercise more, etc. But we don’t do those things. We know about the starving children but knowing about them is not enough to get one off one’s lazy behind to do something (even though it only takes 2 clicks of a mouse to donate to very trustworthy institutions.) Because ultimately these facts about what we should do are only a pretext for action in the context of values. This is where values come along. One of my old Pastors use to always emphasize “a change in the value system.” As Kirkegaard says, “decision and action are motivated by values, not by facts.”

Value Conflicts and Assumptions

Early I wrote an article entitled Question Everything where I briefly shared about value conflicts and assumptions in gun control. Now I will talk about it using the analogy of veganism. There are many reasons to be vegan, it is cheaper, better for the environment, healthier (The China Study), ethically less chickens and piglets die, etc. But there are also reasons not to be vegan such as, awkward social encounters, discomfort of learning how to cook vegetables, it might be more expensive in the beginning as you get to learn how to cook vegan, etc. Basically the conflict is between well being of self/environment versus self-comfort. You have to change your life style to become vegan, which is always difficult. But if you value health and the environment more than your individual comfort you will make the choice to become vegan. (I’m making value assumptions here, if you see it you can critique me int he comment section.)

The Existential

Honestly every decision boils down to the subjective, not the what, but the how.  We each have our own existential (learned from experience) reasons. There are objective reasons, but those are not the same fore everybody. Actually I wanted to write an article about this because I felt there was an emphasis on the what on this forum i.e. you went to the Midwest Summer Bible Conference, that means you are brain washed and not thinking. It seems similar to the flip side of you don’t do daily bread or write testimonies or one-to one’s? Then you are not a good Christian. (When people hear I go to WL the first thing they ask is, “Do they do Bible Studies?” How is that even a question? What church does not read/study the Bible? That question is loaded; it implies that there is a certain way to do Bible Studies and other ways are not valid.)

Anyways, I blabber on to say that in the end it doesn’t matter what you do. Whether you go to MSBC or eat meat/drink milk or don’t do church activities or go vegan. One is not defined but one’s (in)actions. Someone once phrased the gospel this way: in the world your position is determined by your practice, i.e. you are only a writer if you are published. In the gospel your practice is determined by your position, i.e. you are a writer, so you write. Kierkegaard also writes about this and says, “in a significant sense, you are your values since your selfhood is the wellspring of your actions.” If you truly believe God is good, your actions will show. If you believe He is not good, your actions will show that too. So why do we focus so much on the outer actions and essentialize others i.e. she talks to boys, she’s a flirt, she reads ubfriends she hates ubf, she does yoga, she’s not a Christian, etc.

To conclude

As I said before I’m not trying to guilt trip everyone to eat a certain way, but I’m trying to bring attention to the importance of not what we do per se, but how we do things. Let’s not essentialize others based on their actions, where they go on Sunday (or where they don’t go). What church activities they interact with or don’t interact with. This doesn’t mean to be apathetic about everything; it means to be okay with people being different or you yourself being the different one. People always give me flack for trying to be vegan and million other things I do, but I have my reasons. They don’t always make sense to others though.

Do you agree that it’s not what you do but how you do it? Have you been essentialized for doing something? What value conflicts do you see in your life i.e. loyalty-honesty, freedom of speech-security, tradition-novelty, individual responsibility-collective responsibilty ?

Additional Resources

Value Conflicts and Assumptions for Critical Reading

A Quick Recap

In my Part 1, my opening article, I shared that I would address three concerns that non-affirming Christians have posed to me. I agree with their concerns. Here is a summary of how I would address those concerns.

a) The non-affirming conscience rightly concerns about the holiness of God. Are we disobeying God? What is God up to?

My response: In Part 2, I shared that I see God at work in the “gay debates” in three ways: The disarming of religious authorities, the unleashing of freedom (break every enslavement) and the deconstruction of male-dominated patriarchy. I shared what I experienced from worshipping and interacting with LGBTQIA people. I did not see the holiness of God being violated by affirming these people and their desire to get married. Instead, I have seen a more robust examination of the gospel, a restoration of purpose for the church, an excitement about life and several gifts, which include a better understanding of holiness.

b) The non-affirming conscience rightly concerns about our children. Are we setting a bad example? How do we break through the hostility?

My response: In Part 3, I shared the stories and history about Alan Turing, and his royal pardon by the Queen of England decades after his death. The Queen’s affirming stance toward Turing is a positive example of setting a good example. One way to break through the hostility is with empathy, going beyond the right vs wrong arguments. It will indeed take decades to sort out what’s been happening. My hope is that the church can have enough compassion to listen and to step back and see the bad example and injustice that has been done to gender and sexual minorities.

c) The non-affirming conscience rightly concerns about immorality. Are we on a slippery slope? What restraint do we have?

Here is my response, Part 4.

Some Questions

Is it possible to maintain moral fortitude, gospel consistency and also affirm same-sex marriage? My contention is yes. Many theologians, such as Richard B. Hays, have left this door open. Matthew Vines, David Gushee, Jim Brownson and the other Reformation Project activists are going through that door.

Some ask: Aren’t you on a slippery slope? What’s next, a man marrying his teddy bear? My first answer is yes, we my indeed be on a slippery slope. However, are we not supposed to live by faith? Does not our Lord call us to go and brave the slippery slope?

Some Actions I Do Not Affirm

When I say I am “affirming” I need to point out that I do not affirm the following:

• I do not affirm abuse of others with sex
• I do not affirm excess of sexual activity or promiscuity
• I do not affirm rape, prostitution or pedophilia
• I do not affirm adultery, polygamy or incest
• I do not affirm revising Scripture

Some Actions I Do Affirm

What then, specifically do I affirm when I claim to be “affirming”?

• Celibacy as a gift for some
• Faithful kinship bonds between two people
• Civil debate and disagreement
• Revisiting, rereading and reassessing Scripture
• Love

How do we have moral restraint?

One of my contentions is that Gentile Christians do not live under the supervision of the moral codes in the Old Covenant. Hebrews 8 is the primary source of this contention. The Old Covenant is obsolete. We are no longer under the law. I see the Bible teaching us three ways Christians have moral restraint. It is my belief that such things give the church confidence to navigate the sexual landscape in an affirming manner.

• The power of the Holy Spirit
• The guidance of love and justice
• The wisdom of hermeneutics

The Redemptive Movement Hermeneutic

I want to briefly introduce a hermeneutical approach to reading the Bible developed by a man named William Webb. He used his own principles to arrive at a non-affirming stance toward LGBTQIA people. However, when you study his own work, you can find shortcomings in his application of his own hermeneutic. If he applied his own work more objectively, he would actually arrive at a far more affirming stance toward LGBTQIA people.

Webb’s work has received much criticism from both sides. Affirming people disagree with his conclusions about homosexuals. Non-affirming people disagree with his approach, because he pushes the boundaries of “Biblical authority”.

In my armchair theologian mind however, Webb’s approach is brilliant and gives a good starting framework to speak intelligently about the Bible in various contexts.

The core principle of Webb’s hermeneutic is called the X>Y>Z principle.

“Within the model, the central position (Y) stands for where the isolated words of the Bible are in their development of a subject. Then, on either side of the biblical text, one must ask the question of perspective: What is my understanding of the biblical text, if I am looking from the perspective of the original culture (X)? Also, what does the biblical text look like from our contemporary culture, where it happens to reflect a better social ethic-one closer to an ultimate ethic (Z) than to the ethic revealed in the isolated words of the biblical text?”

William Webb: “Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis”, pg 31

Further reading:

As Easy as X-Y-Z

The Evangelical Theologian and William Webb’s Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic: A Theological Analysis

Pride has traditionally be viewed as the worst of the sins. St. Augustine attributed nearly all other vices to pride. Pride, as he says, is the sin of loving yourself more than God. It manifests as contempt for others, shows itself as competition between others, and poisons everything it touches. People much closer to God than I could ever hope to be, have reserved no insults or denouncements for this sin. They have offered it no disguise. In short, the church has always held that if we could rid the world of pride, we would have no need for a second coming.

There are two things that often go unnoticed about pride. First, it is easily disguised and therefore hard to correct. If someone speaks of how he has sacrificed much for God or his family, is he seeking praise? Or is he simply proclaiming how he is thankful he could be so lucky to give to God? Pride, being closest to our Adversary, mirrors the temptation that Eve fell to. The second thing that is often unnoticed is that the Church and Christianity in general have often been at odds with the World in its view on if pride is even a sin to begin with. It is hard to find a non-Christian who agrees with violence, greed, or adultery (even if they might find excuses for them). But if you find someone who sees pride as an issue, you have found a Christian. In fact, when a non-Christian even addresses it as an issue and says “He is arrogant.” The issue is usually because his own pride, his own ego feels threatened. But he never thinks that should he actually be better than the guy he criticized that bragging or pride would be his reward for his own abilities.

Pride manifests as an arms race. The idea present in the proud person is that he needs to be better than other people. People can usually discern if they are lustful, violent, envious, but rarely will they discover they are proud. Pride is so close to people, so ingrained in people that they cannot see it easily. For this reason hardest all of all sins to correct. A preacher preaching against pride will therefore find himself talking to an empty room. Everyone in the audience finds his neighbor guilty but never themselves.  The only method I have learned to tell how proud I am is ask myself how offended I am when I (or my accomplishments) go unnoticed. You may even ask how mad are you when your status is left unrecognized? The madder you get, chances are the prouder you are.

A few final things I will leave you with. First, I am not at all suggesting that we cannot find enjoyment in life. It is not proud to find a sunset enjoyable, or to take delight in a walk, or even to feel happiness while on a date. We should be like children, who find enjoyment in things meant to be enjoyed, but never enjoy yourself for the sake of yourself. We are not a proper item of worship. Second, being proud of your child, or feeling proud of a job well done is a different use or the word. Here the admiration is felt because you are giving approval to something outside yourself. Nor is it pride to suppose that one cannot feel good about being a servant of Christ (or doing good deeds). The bible says clearly “Well done my good and faithful servant…Come and share your master’s happiness.” But in that moment, we must resist the urge to feel that is was by my own goodness but rather the goodness of Christ. St. Augustine in Confessions ponders the same question, how can you know if it is pride or if it is really given to God?:

“I cannot pretend that I am not pleased by praise…But I have to admit that not only does admiration increase my pleasure, but that adverse criticism diminishes it. When this symptom disturbs me, self- justification worms its way into me, of a kind which you know, my God.”

But his answer is to be pleased, not with yourself- but with the love of others.

“Your will is that we should love not only you but our neighbor. Often when I am pleased to be praised by someone whose understanding is good, my pleasure lies in my neighbor’s progress or promise of it… But once again how can I know whether that is my reaction because I do not want my admirer to hold a view of me different from my own? Truth, in you, I know I see that if I am to be praised be not on my own account but the account of my neighbor.”

Admiration spoils fast, if it is not given to God is becomes poisonous. The final thing I should mention is regarding a bad definition of pride. It is pure fiction to suppose that pride means disagreeing with church authority, or anyone else for that matter. I am unsure how such an unreasonable definition can be held without bursting into laughter. Neither good sense, the bible, church tradition, nor anything else has ever had this definition. Not to say that disobedience is good, I am simply saying that to call it pride is to misdiagnose the patient. When it comes down to it there are really only two types of people, those who are proud and know it- and those who are proud and do not know it.

“Nearly all the wisdom we possess, that is to say, true and sound wisdom, consists of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves.” – John Calvin

“When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the stars, which You have ordained, What is man that You are mindful of him, And the son of man that You visit him?”- Psalm 8:3,4

Intercultural Ministry is inevitable; yet we make the choice of embracing it or ignoring it. No two humans are alike, even those from the same “culture.” We are all unique in our own ways, therefore it is critical to learn how to do intercultural ministry, whether in seminary or not.

The definition of my personal theology of intercultural ministry is the process of striving to know God and mankind and the application of this knowledge. As the author in Psalm 8 states, God is the one who created the heavens, moon and stars, but who is man that God pays attention to him? God is the one who shakes the earth and parts the Red Sea. He is the Holiest of Holies. He is the Alpha and the Omega. He has always been. All mankind is contingent to Him and yet he loves man.  He is the One who sent His Son into the world to be murdered and sacrificed for us, for me.

As we learn more about God, we see how fallen man is. Romans 3:10,11, “”There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God.” We see how completely depraved man is and yet how valued man is in the eyes of God through the blood of Jesus, even to the degree that God loves His only begotten Son. John 17:23, “that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me.” This is a mystery. My heart resonates with the psalmist as he asks, “What is man that you are mindful of him?” This is the question at the heart of intercultural ministry, what is man ontologically? Who is God? And why does God who loves man so? How does this knowledge affect our lives?

What I learned in the course

Through this course, I picked up tools on how to interact interculturally and think critically. Here are a few of them:

1. De-essentializtion – A person is more than their socio-economic status, gender, sexual orientation, religions, etc. For example, people who write about slums are, more often than not, people who do not live in slums, so the literature about slums is not a complete representation of slum dwellers. Often they are essentialized as poor and pitiful. We must hear more than one side of the story.
2. Intentionality -While we were presenting our final projects this is a topic that came up over and over again. When doing intercultural ministry mistakes are bound to happen. For example, it is almost impossible to translate a worship service into the native language of everyone present, but having translators available and approachable simply as an option would be kind and considerate. Also, having signs translated into every language necessary is not possible, but at least English, Spanish and Chinese would be helpful (depending on your demographics).
3. Local Sages – Often there are certain members of the congregation who are never called on to preach a sermon. But they have gone through the test of time and have so much wisdom to share. These are the people I should seek for wisdom and insight.
4. Metaphors – There are seemingly harmless words like white, black, human capital, volcanic anger, etc. and when we use them they may imply things that we never intended. It is necessary to use our words carefully, respectfully and with love towards those we are addressing or referring to.
5. Lenses – We all come to the table wearing many lenses whether they be existential, social, psychological, political, economical, etc. Often times our beliefs are results of the country we live in and the time period we are in. As Christians, God’s opinion should have first place in our hearts, minds and lives. Thus we should be aware of the lenses we wear and make an effort to remove them.
6. Flip the Narrative, Embrace Diversity – This means to open up the conversation. When discussing issues of race, make sure there are different races represented. For example, when talking about “white privilege” do not simply ask people who all look the same
7. Pray for milkshakes – While Prof A shared about his life, I learned things about prayer I did not know before. I learned that every decision is a theological one, even the decision to buy a weekly $2.30 Mcdonalds milkshake. (My prof shared about how he would pray about whether to spend money weekly on milkshakes or not). Honestly, for me, prayer sometimes seems tiresome, exhausting, and time-consuming. But through this course and other courses I am learning how liberating prayer is because it implies that every single part of my life matters. Also, I am not a good steward of my life. I have only been around for 26 years; God has much more wisdom than me. I want God to have the monopoly over my life.  Even now, I am so confused with what I am doing at seminary or why I am here. But I want to take it one day at a time, one semester at a time, just as Prof A prayed when he drove by Mcdonald’s. Sometimes the Lord said yes and sometimes the Lord said no. May the Lord teach me to listen to Him in all my decisions whether big or small.

Ways this course was helpful

“Humans don’t want to hear about the depth of human depravity.”

This course was so uncomfortable because we were forced to come face to face with difficult questions. For example, why are children allowed to suffer? Or ISIS allowed to exist? Why do we spend so much money on coffee? And why do we not notice when thousands of people are dying around us? Why do we spend time and money in seminary when so many people need Him outside the walls of Moody? Is there a better gospel?  I needed to ask these questions. I need to be shaken out of my bubble where my biggest dilemma is deciding whether to get Indian or Chinese food for dinner or what to watch on netflix. I live a charmed life. I cannot deny it. It is like a living version of the Hunger Games and I live in the capital. I’m glad that in this class I could be reminded of that. Every week, Prof A would survey the room and comment on how wealthy we are. This was helpful because it brought me back to reality.

It seems like this was a morbid class, but it wasn’t completely. I saw hope through this class. The honesty was refreshing because healing cannot be done until we diagnose the state we are in. There is a huge idol in US churches and it’s green; it’s money. But we are not powerless before it. We don’t have to hate and criticize American culture or wait to be shipped off to a foreign country for our real ministry to start. The US is ripe for harvest; we are plump and overfed. And God is mercifully opening our eyes to this.

Another point Prof A often shared is that “ministry is everywhere.” It is even in my neighborhood elderly home. There are so many refugees and unreached people in Chicago right now. They are inside their homes waiting for someone to minister to them. I can start right now. This was very encouraging to me.

And finally, through our discussions I began to love Jesus more. I began to see that He was not one to cut people short or give simple reduced answers. He is someone who could see so much more in a person than the human eye can. He is someone who wept over people. He was someone completely unpredictable. My human mind cannot wrap around the fact that God destroys and punishes but he does it lovingly with tears in his eyes. This is an impossible combination according to the opinion of my overly tolerant and affirmative culture. How can Jesus bear both grace and truth uncompromisingly?

Jesus loved people; and His love was evident to those he loved. He wants our submission, but he does not demand it. After our discussions I often thought where would Jesus be if he came back to Chicago in 2015? What neighborhood would he be living in? How would he spend his time? What would He be doing? And this gives me insight into how I should be living my life and spending my time.

I also learned about the jealousy of God the Father, especially because we memorized Zephaniah 1:8, 3:8. God is not only the God who answers our prayers and sends rainbows. He is a God who has emotions such as wrath, anger and jealousy. It really reminded me of Aslan in Narnia. He was not safe, but He was good. And yet in Zephaniah 3:17, it talks about a God who takes great delight in my, quiets me with his love and exults over me with loud singing. Our God is a complex God whose depth and breadth cannot be explained even if we had all eternity. Through this course I learned more insights into the heart of man and the heart of God.

He is IMPORTANT in the church

Why do such shocking things happen in the holy church of God? My contention is that our theology (Bible study) always informs our Christian life. As I am studying Romans slowly and deliberately, I am positing a grossly inadequate understanding of sin as to why sin continues to thrive even in the church and often dealt with rather poorly.

1, 3, 22 sermons. Several times over two decades in Chicago UBF, I studied Rom 1:18-3:20 in one sermon and/or Bible study. This year, I expanded it to three sermons at West Loop:  Gospel Suppression (1:18-2:5); Gospel Impartiality (2:6-29); Gospel Accusation (3:1-20). If you think this is a lot (by UBF standards), John Piper preached 20 sermons on these verses, and Martyn Lloyd-Jones preached 22 sermons on these 64 verses!

Unthankfulness. The point of the UBF message was that the root of sin is unthankfulness (Rom 1:21). Therefore, we should always be thankful (1 Th 5:18). Of course, this is true. I know, as we all do, that if we are not thankful for any reason, we immediately lose peace and joy in our hearts and souls.

Disgusting sinners. I also learned that in a world without God, sin simply escalates and causes people to go from bad to worse (Rom 1:18-32). Again, we all know that this is also true.

UBF’s emphasis is on Rom 1:18-32 which constituted the major bulk of the sermon, while Rom 2:1-3:20 was just touched on rather briefly with a significant portion regarded as supplemental study. It felt to me as though it was optional and therefore not that important. So I never studied Rom 2:1-3:20, since the UBF sermon and manuscript spent hardly any time or emphasis on it.

My wrong understanding is that these 64 verses were not all that important for two reasons. (1) It’s about sin and we can skim it quickly, so that we can talk more about Jesus. (2) We studied these 64 verses in one sermon and focused on unthankfulness based on the chosen key verse, Rom 1:21.

Missing Paul’s main point in the flow of his argument. What I realized when I studied these verses more extensively a few months ago was that I missed what Paul was really trying to say in these 64 verses. (It was not “don’t be unthankful!”) Yes, the sins of the Gentiles are horrible. They are irreligious and immoral, lawless and licentious, and often gross and grotesque. But Paul’s point is not how horrible Gentile sinners are, but that the Jews–who were religious, moral and law abiding–were just as bad, if not worse! If we are to do justice with Rom 1:18-3:20, a key verse that better reflects these 64 verses is Rom 3:9, rather than Rom 1:21. “Jew and Gentile alike” (Rom 3:9) can be understood as “Christian and non-Christian,” or “religious and irreligious,” or “moral and immoral,” or “Bible believing and Bible ignorant” being equally under the power of sin. Doesn’t this explain why horrible sin happens in the church and then is covered up as though somehow Christians (or certain people) get some kind of special free pass?

What is Paul’s emphasis? Of the 64 verses, Paul spent 15 verses on Gentile sinners (Rom 1:18-32) and 49 verses (Rom 2:1-3:20) on Jewish sinners–more than three times the amount! Conversely, if I remember correctly, the UBF manuscript used up 4-5 pages on 15 verses (the sins of irreligious Gentiles) and just a page plus on 49 verses (the sins of religious “Bible believing” Jews).

This was how Paul preached and taught the Bible. When Paul taught about the sins of the Gentiles to a Jewish crowd, he noticed how the religious Jews were fully agreeing with him: “Yeah, Paul, go sock it to those disgusting immoral godless wicked Gentile sinners!” Thus, Paul switched gears from Rom 2:1-3:20 and socked it to the very decent, well-dressed, well behaved and religious Bible believing Jewish sinners for 49 verses!

Why am I belaboring this? As stated above, our Bible study of sin in these verses affects our understanding of sin and sinners. If we emphasize the sins of the Gentiles and inadvertently de-emphasize the sins of the Jews, this will be how it is in the church. We think, speak and act as though certain sins are worse (immorality, promiscuity, drunkenness), while other sins are not that bad (gossip, slander, politics, vanity, defensiveness, offensiveness). We blast the sins of the immoral, while we basically go easy on the “better behaved” sins of certain people in the church. Does this adequately explain my first paragraph above?

Have you studied about the sins of the religious in Rom 2:1-3:20? Should the sins of “certain important people” in the church be dealt with differently than others?

Do’s and don’ts

It doesn’t work. Though not entirely, yet as a Christian I generally don’t disagree in theory and principle with the above imperatives. The problem is that it doesn’t work! Sooner or later it produces despair and despondency (because I just can’t stop flirting!). Or it produces varying degrees of pride and self-righteousnes (What’s wrong with those rebellious, complaining, disobedient, immature, proud people!).

Law and grace. As I am studying and preaching on Romans at West Loop in some depth and detail, it seems rather clear that Paul makes it a point to elaborately explain and distinguish between grace and law, faith and works, credit and merit, justification and work righteousness, humility/unity and elitism/nationalism.

Do I need to know the difference? I used to think that nitpicking about such theological distinctions was practically irrelevant. I regarded it as unnecessary, since Christians should primarily just feed sheep (Jn 21:15-17) and make disciples (Mt 28:19).

A hole in our gospel when discipling others. But if we ignore such biblical Pauline teachings we are ignoring a significant chunk of teachings in the NT. We will have some hole in our gospel. Mainly, we Christians often think that the way to genuinely help others is to simply instruct them correctly and biblically as to what to do. We should tell them to obey the teachings of the Bible. In other words, we are giving them the law, some law, some imperative, some command that they should follow and obey. (See the first paragraph.)

The law, though good, makes us worse. Paul said that the law is good (Rom 7:12), since the law is from God and it reflects who God is. Yet the law is NEVER able to change or transform anyone, since as sinners, including all Christians, the law makes us worse, not better.

Be humble. For instance, if you tell an older Christian, “Be humble,” he knows that what you said is correct. But he will likely not become humble just because you clearly told him what he knows is biblical, correct and true. Yet surprisingly, when this older Christian tells someone younger that they should be humble, they often somehow expect that their directive and command be followed and obeyed.

The law makes you and your sin worse. Paul’s repeated point in Romans is that the law doesn’t work. In fact, the law:

• shows you your sin (Rom 3:20)
• brings the wrath of God (Rom 4:15)
• increases sin in you (Rom 5:20)
• arouses sinful passions in you (Rom 7:5)
• produces sinful desire in you (Rom 7:8)
• weakens you (Rom 8:3)

Only the gospel is the power of God for salvation (Rom 1:16). It is surely the reason why Paul explicitly stated that testifying to the gospel of the grace of God was his only aim in life (Ac 20:24).

Does it make sense that the law makes you worse, not better? Is your life driven by the gospel of God’s grace? Or is it driven by the law? Does your church motivate people by the gospel of God’s grace? Or by the law?

This is the 11th week of Seminary. The academic challenge I am getting here is very restorative to my faith. There are two classes in particular that are changing the way I view life: Introduction to Theological Research and Hermeneutics (interpretation of the Bible). These are the two first classes for any seminary student.

Through these classes I am becoming aware of the pre-understandings and value assumptions present in me. Life is not black and white; it is a million shades of gray. For example, let’s take the issue of Gun Control. There is a conflict between the values of public safety versus freedom of choice. Both these ideas are good. It is good to be safe, but it is also good to be able to exercise your freedom. In the US obviously individual freedom is valued higher and hence its is relatively easy to get a gun. To make any decision you are comparing two or more values. It is important to be aware of those values and make sure that they are based on a trustworthy foundation.

Even in the Apologetics class I am taking I see the difficulty of simply conversing with those who have a different worldview because their idea of truth is different from mine. My professor defined worldview as the thing that affects every decision, thought, action, feeling, etc. all the while being completely undetected by us. Basically it is the lens through which we view the world; without it we simply cannot see. (*Note: one can call himself a Christian but that does not guarantee a correct worldview. Those who call themselves Christian can have a wrong view of God and scripture, i.e. Matthew 7:21)

Those with different worldviews are speaking different languages. For example, when a Christian and Muslim talk in English they can be understanding each other on a surface level but not on a deeper level. In Islam there is no questioning the Quran. Islam is about submission and obedience. Muslims are not allowed to question any grammatical mistakes in the Quran. Christians, however, can question, scrutinize and criticize the Bible and we must. We must question the basis of our faith, the scriptures. If you have the chance to learn Hebrew and Greek then please take it. (If you are only reading one translation of the Bible right now you really must invest into another translation. At least, have one formal and on functional translation of the Bible. The NIV is a functional translation.) Even the definite or indefinite article in “an angel” or “the angel” can have huge theological implications.

As Christians we understand that the motive of our faith is God. Our motive of faith is: 1) What God affirms is true. 2) God affirms the teachings of Scripture. 3) Therefore, the teachings of Scripture are true. The motives of credibility, however, are all the items of evidence that lead someone to believe that Scripture is God’s word, i.e., archaeological evidence, testimony of historians, instances of fulfilled prophecy, a sense of Scripture’s majesty and an acquaintance with Scripture’s power to transform lives (House 2011, 83). The motives of credibility change with time and more research. “They [motives of credibility] give rise to only to a human and fallible faith. One needs this human and fallible faith nevertheless to obtain the motive of faith, from which divine and infallible faith springs (House, 83).” We must go upstream and check our sources and question our Pastors. St. Paul praised the noble Bereans in Acts 17:11 because they examined scripture to make sure what Paul was saying was true. We also need to practice examining the scripture.

Ravi Zacharias has written about the Quran. He wrote, “Let us consider just one troublesome aspect, the grammatical flaws that have been demonstrated [in the Quran]. Ali Dashti, an Iranian author and a committed Muslim, commented that the errors in the Quran were so many that the grammatical rules had to be altered in order to fit the claim that the Quran was flawless. He gives numerous examples of these in his book, Twenty-three Years: The Life of the Prophet Mohammed. (The only precaution he took before publishing this book was to direct that it be published posthumously) (Rhodes 1995, 83).”

Ali Dashti wrote, “The Quran contains sentences which are incomplete and not fully intelligible without the aid of commentaries; foreign words, unfamiliar Arabic words, and words used with other than the normal meaning; adjectives and verbs inflected without observance of the concord of gender and number; illogical and ungrammatically applied pronouns which sometimes have no referant; and predicates which in rhymed passages are often remote from the subjects. These and other such aberrations in the language have given scope to critics who deny the Quran’s eloquence. . . To sum up, more than 100 Quranic aberrations from the normal rules and structure of Arabic have been noted (Rhodes, 83).

I am not saying don’t read the Quran. By all means read it (Christians should be educated about all religions.) I am saying don’t read it without questioning it. Don’t read the Bible without questioning it either.

The Bible has many different translations. Some gospels have different accounts and leave certain details out or add details. Sometimes the number of characters in the story is different. (These are all normal things. When there are eye witnesses questioned about an event; they remember different things.) But the authors left clues and places to go to to get more information. In Christianity, one can voice their doubts without the fear of being persecuted, hopefully.

While studying I have realized how little I know and how little anybody really knows. Even Biblical scholars are not completely sure of everything they write. But we always function on partial information. It is how we survive. The important thing is to keep asking questions, keep searching and examining. 1 Corinthians 13:12. “For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.”

Do you question everything? Are there any questions that have been on your mind lately?

House, H. Wayne, and Dennis W. Jowers.Reasons for Our Hope. Nashville: B & H Pub. Group, 2011.

Rhodes, Ron. Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Muslims. Eugene, Or.: Harvest House, 2002.

I recall a childhood story about a girl from India. She was arranged to marry someone from birth. The girl grew up and fell in love with another man and when the time came for her to marry she told her family no. “But this is how it has always been. You marry the man that has been decided.” But the girl, now woman said “But why does it have to be how it has always been? I will still marry.” This is very much the story of a person trying to change the methods while preserving the ideal. In one sense our task as Christians in judging the aims and means is very easy. For most of us the aim is quite easy to judge. A confusion of methodologies and ideologies is a constant source of problem across many different disciplines and institutions. It is very much the story of a person attempting to break tradition.

To start there is wisdom in tradition. Tradition has been tried, and it has worked for a long time. I have heard it described that tradition is giving votes to our ancestors. When going against tradition one must be very careful. There are often times unknown dangers that come with the territory. I like to think of the practice of cohabitation that developed in the midcentury. Prior to this the method of courtship never contained living together prior to marriage. Then my parent’s generation questioned this norm and now most contemporary courtship contains cohabitation. Sadly this method has been tried and found wanting. Couples who live together prior to marriage tend to have less successful marriages.

Sometimes though the methodology is tried and is found to be better. The norm used to be that women could not hold jobs outside of strictly “matronly” activities like being a man’s assistant or housing a large number of kids for 8 hours a day. With women entering the work force the size and scope of the American economy has grown. This was greatly resisted. Gk Chesterton, the man I quoted up above, went so far as to say that women were selling themselves into the slavery of their employers.

The problem with evaluating Christian tradition is that is quickly becomes bogged down in ideology. They are often times confused. This happens outside of Christianity when people equate science, a methodology, to atheism, an ideology. Historically they have been viewed as the same, because the methodology comes by authority, which is given by scripture which is the basis of the ideology. I am a firm believer in being orthodox in our beliefs. To be relativistic is to be intellectually weak. On the other hand our methodology has to be relativistic. There is scriptural basis for this. “There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work.” (1 Cor 12:4-6) “But test them all; hold on to what is good” A methodology is pretty easy to test. If the methodology goes against natural law then it has no basis in scripture. By natural law I mean anything that contributes to the family life. If a Christian methodology overwhelmingly leads to anything that abuses or harms a family or person, this methodology should be discarded. There is nothing else to say. The methodology should also make the person into the ideal. Does your Christian methodology produce people like Christ? If the answer is no then it should be discarded. These are the criterion for our methods. Note that this criterion is a product of the ideal, Christ and his love for us as creations of God the Father. If you have a verse that disagrees with the criterion then criterion is not wrong your interpretation is, because Christ and his love are beyond question for the Christian.

One common response is not that the method does not work, just that the person is not taking to the method perfectly. Indeed nobody can follow Christ perfectly but we are to try anyways. I have heard it said “He is rejecting the call of discipleship.” The tacit implication is that the person is wrong and the method is not. This argument seems to carry weight, but we can easily compare the magnitude of the result of the methodology when it is hypothetically being rejected to the norm. When we find terrible, terrible stories of suicide, divorces, and the like- all in the name of becoming like Jesus the evidence seems to indicate that the method is in the wrong. Not the person.

In summary, we cannot escape methodology as teachers and leaders of the church. But we ought to test everything. We should be orthodox in our aims, but relative in our methods.

My dog. When I was a young boy we had a family dog for many years. One day while we were walking together by a street my dog was fatally hit by a car. When I ran to him in tears, he was clearly dying but still barely alive after being mortally wounded with massive internal injuries. I reached out to him to gently caress his face as he was in the pangs of death and gasping for his last breaths of life. When my hand touched his face his spontaneous response was to bite my hand because he was in such agony and did not know who had touched him. But the very moment that he was about to bite my hand he realized that it was I and he immediately loosened his bite, breathed his last breadth and died. I can never ever forget this for as long as I live even though this happened 50 years ago. Why?

Love. I think the reason is because my dog demonstrated that he loved me and would never hurt me, not even when he was dying in agony and barely clinging to his last moments of life. I perceive this to be a very real human story that allows us to catch a glimpse into the greatness of God’s love for each of us. Even though it cost losing His one and only Son, God paid the price so that he would not hurt us. God wants more than anything else to save us, to wipe every tear from our eyes, to comfort every broken heart, and to hug and kiss us tenderly like the father who ran and kissed his long lost son when he came home (Lk 15:20b). At the moment of embrace, the father was not at all interested in hearing about any of his son’s sins. He was just so happy to have his son back. God wants to love us and hug us so much, even at the cost of losing his Son on the cross.

My cat. Two months ago, my 13 year old cat, fell from the second floor and broke her hind leg. She could not walk properly but would barely walk by dragging her broken leg. Usually she stays on the second floor. But that morning after breaking her leg, she was by our doorstep, looking rather docile and peaceful. My friend told me that when animals are hurt they would act normal because they fear that something bad would happen to them if they reveal that they are hurt. I also heard a similar explanation that when an animal in the wild is wounded they would never reveal or show that they are wounded for fear that a predator would sense their weakness and attack them. In my helplessness as to what to do with my hurt and wounded cat, I painfully decided to relinquish her to an animal shelter in Chicago Ridge with great sadness and sorrow of heart. My cat had grown up with my four kids for the last 13 years. She was like a part of my family as she was with my four children as they went from teenagers to young adults. With great reluctance I felt that I had no choice but to relinquish her because I could no longer take care of her with a broken leg and with other health issues as well–being deaf, having persistent flea infestation and having very bad allergic skin reactions from the fleas resulting in her scratching and gouging herself until she bleeds with sores and scabs. Still I so desperately wanted to keep her and not lose her. The most painful part for me was the half hour it took to drive from my home to the animal shelter, followed by the one hour wait, knowing that after I relinquished her I will never ever see her again. Then there was still the very painful drive home alone with my cat carrier…without my dear cat. Somehow I wanted to save her but I could not and did not.

Fear of vulnerability. In a way we humans are all like my wounded cat who controlled herself and acted as though she was fine, even though she had been crippled by her broken leg and no longer able to walk, run or jump like the happy healthy cat that she once was. We are so deathly afraid of being vulnerable. We are so afraid of others thinking that we are bad or no good. So we hide our spiritual broken leg and pretend to walk normally and happily so that when others see us they cannot tell who we truly are. But God knows who we are. God understands how we are. In fact, through Christ, God became like us–weak and wounded, frail and fragile, broken and vulnerable–so that we might become like him. I turned my cat in with great sadness of heart that keeps lingering and does not go away. God could have similarly turned away from us with full justification. But He did not. Instead, God turned away from the Son he loves, so that he can shine his face toward us. This is the glory and mystery of Jesus who loves us at the cost of his life. This was how “God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood” (Rom 3:25).

Please feel free to critique and comment on my sermon and on my frail human attempt to share and explain the glorious mystery of the atonement.

Recently, my pastor among others is in Chicago for Samuel Lee’s birthday party. To save some effort I will refer to him as “Sam” for the rest of this, mostly because full names are for Roman emperors and criminals. As far as I know he is neither. When I think of the reverence given to Sam the closest comparison in my life has to be Cs Lewis. I wondered openly if I had perhaps given Cs Lewis too much authority as I read that verse in Galatians. I believe that only scripture is authoritative, yet I find I refer to Cs Lewis in many cases more often than the bible. I realized there were some clear similarities between how many view Sam and how I view Cs Lewis. I wondered “Have I ever heard Cs Lewis say something wrong? If I did would I point it out? Or would I just make excuses like people do for other revered leaders.”

Before I answer that I believe it is critical to know how I view Cs Lewis. When I was 8 years old I was assigned a mentor at school to read with me. The school realized that my mother was not reading with me. For the Christmas of 2000 I was given The Magician’s Nephew. We read about half of it before he moved on for whatever reason. When I was a freshman in college I was given a copy of Mere Christianity for my birthday by my roommate. I started reading the book but found it dry and boring. As a junior in college I was struggling greatly in my faith, when that same roommate told me to read a sermon by Cs Lewis called The Weight of Glory (it is available online). That sermon brought me back from nearly losing my faith. If I am not carful I feel myself wanting to assign the reverence that is due to God, to him. Intellectually this seems absurd, but experience proves to me otherwise. To many people who either didn’t have Christ, or had fallen away Cs Lewis has been an instrument of God. But he was also just a man, and men make mistakes. Men do not have the authority of scripture, even the holy ones. I have read every essay of Cs Lewis and nearly his entire volume of Christian writings. In it I have found him to be fallible. It is with great caution (or perhaps pride) that I will now point out the single instance with which I have found disagreement.

There is an essay available online entitled “The World’s Last Night.” In this essay Cs Lewis explains his views on the apocalypse. He starts by addressing people who claim the entire message of Jesus was that of the apocalypse. He states there case as this:

“Say what you like” we shall be told, “the apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, “this generation shall not pass till all these things be done/ And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else.”

Cs Lewis goes to call the verse “embarrassing” (I shudder at such a description of the words of Christ)

It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible.

Cs Lewis then says that it is unreasonable that this verse would be fabricated because it makes Jesus look bad. Furthermore gives evidence to the accuracy of the gospel. But he has not yet answered the argument. When he does he states that Jesus is ignorant, and says although this may sound bad, we just cannot comprehend it. Let me state that again. Cs Lewis in The World’s Last Night calls the Incarnation of God, the Word made flesh ignorant.

The facts, then, are these: that Jesus professed himself (in some sense) ignorant, and within a moment showed that he really was so. To believe in the Incarnation, to believe that he is God, makes it hard to understand how he could be ignorant; but also makes it certain that, if he said he could be ignorant, then ignorant he could really be. For a God who can be ignorant is less baffling than a God who falsely professes ignorance. The answer of theologians is that the God-Man was omniscient as God, and ignorant as Man…We are committing [a] blunder whenever we ask how Christ could be at the same moment ignorant and omniscient, or how he could be the God who neither slumbers nor sleeps while he slept.

Cs Lewis appears to have found a problematic passage, but his solution is problematic because this reasoning could be applied all over the place and lead to a non-authoritative word of God. If this statement is true it means revelation is flawed and we cease to have reason to hold scripture as a standard. The consequences of such are dire, at the very least we are trapped by a suicide of our own thoughts. His answer is not only problematic, it is false.  Cs Lewis knew Greek, and I have a hard time believing that he did not know the word “generation” in Greek could also refer to “race”. I am very puzzled how this conclusion was reached. Cs Lewis was not a biblical scholar and likely did not know that Jewish prophesy is often times fulfilled in part, and then in whole. This is called compenetration. This occurs in 2 Samuel 7 and again in Psalms 2 in which a single prophesy refers to both David and the Messiah. It also occurs in Isaiah 8:3 which uses the word almah, which means with young woman or virgin. There it is used to refer to Isaiah’s wife (a young woman) and then later with regards to Mary (a virgin). So an explanation could be that part of this prophesy was fulfilled in part by the end of that generation, and later all the rest. Whatever the case I found myself in opposition to the Christian giant.

All great things come to a point, like swords, and this essay. And my point here is that regardless of the interpretation, I believe I have shown that even amongst the most celebrated of Christian authors and influences we should not think them infallible or above the authority of scripture. The world may be a very different place if people had taken Sam’s teachings under the same scope.

Did I miscommunicate biblical faith? I used to make such statements 100s of times to countless Bible students for over a quarter of a century….especially to those who are single and in (restrained desire and) need of a spouse! I am so sorry for all those I did this too… I realize that inherent in such seemingly “innocent” and “cute” statements is that it could be provocative and possibly misleading and miscommunicating biblical faith.

What’s so wrong about making such statements? On the surface, and without much thought or critical reflection, they do sound biblical, don’t they? For Jesus said, “Have faith in God” (Mk 11:22). Also, we Christians absolutely need faith to please God (Heb 11:6), and “the righteous will live by faith” (Rom 1:17c, Hab 2:4). In the OT, when Abram believed God, his faith was credited to him as righteousness (Gen 15:6). Therefore, when we have faith and pray with believing faith (Mk 11:24), we can move immovable mountains (Mk 11:23). We can marry the person of our wildest dreams and raise many disciples for the kingdom of God! Wow…all I need and the only thing I need is faith. This is surely all true, correct and biblical, isn’t it?

The problem is… and there are several potential problems with making such unqualified statements and other related statements regarding faith, such as “With faith you can be a great man, and a Ph.D professor shepherd, and a successful businessman.” So what’s the problem?

It’s up to you and your faith. It presents faith as though it is entirely up to you and to the quality and purity and correctness and soundness of your faith. It puts the burden and pressure on you to have and to exercise the proper kind of faith. Then you, through your faith, will please God and move God’s heart to bless you abundantly according to your faith. It is basically having faith in your faith, rather than in God.

It takes emphasis away from the primacy of God. I am not denying that each Christian is fully responsible for exercising their faith. But to place the burden of faith primarily on the Christian denies or obscures the primacy of God in our faith (Phil 1:6; 2:12-13). It is as though God is not sovereign but that I am sovereign to fulfill God’s will, since God is dependent on my faith before he can or will act to bless me.

It can cause self-centeredness and excessive unhealthy introspection. It causes you to think primarily about yourself (what’s wrong with me or with my faith?), rather than to think or focus primarily on God.

It can be a form of control and guilt-tripping. It gives the church leader and the Bible teacher the control by putting pressure on the Bible student as the one who needs to prove themselves through the exercise of their faith expressed by their performance.

God’s Not Dead misrepresents faith. In the movie God’s Not Dead, a college professor is a staunch atheist. When he was young his mother became ill. Growing up in the church, he believed and prayed that God would heal her. But she died. He became bitter and concluded that God is dead. His idea of faith is that God would answer his prayers if he sincerely and genuinely prays to God by faith. His idea of faith is that he is in the driver’s seat and that God is the one who should do what he prays for. I shared this extemporaneously in my sermon Gospel Faith to express the fallacy of such faith.

Does your faith make you righteous? Interestingly, Rom 1:17 can also be translated “the righteous by faith will live” (Rom 1:17, NET), or “And the righteous one by faith shall live” (Rom 1:17, YLT). This perhaps conveys the essence of faith more clearly by emphasizing what God has done. We Christians do not live by faith to become righteous (or to get what we want or to have our prayers answered). Rather, it is precisely because of our faith in Christ who saves us by his grace that we live! This is the emphasis in my sermon Gospel Power.

What are your experiences with faith? How was faith taught or communicated to you?

How do we become free from the burden of sin?

During a Q&A session after a church service where 2 Tim 3:6-17 was preached, someone asked “How do we become free from the burden of sin and how do we live in that freedom?” The preacher answered “Trust in Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and preach the realities of the gospel to yourself every day.”

This was the right answer. The problem is that the human heart can take a right answer and implement it in the wrong way. A man can indeed find freedom from sin in Christ, but his hopelessly deceitful heart (Jer. 17.9) can lead him right back into bondage to sin, in practice, even though God has justified him by faith, in principle. Knowing how our corrupt hearts can twist a truth, I coped with this tension by asking the question in the negative: How should we not seek freedom from the burden of sin, and how should we not try living in that freedom every day?” In other words, what is the wrong answer to the question?

The wrong answer

There is a prevailing tendency in evangelical Christianity to assume that after a believer is justified by faith in the gospel, sanctification in his/her life is carried forward largely by his/her effort. The problem is the same one Paul admonished the Galatians: “Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?” (Gal 3:3). We assume that after God has brought us into Christ, the real work of staying in Christ is up to us. This widespread tendency–to attempt sanctification by the flesh–is not only seen in Christian living, but is also promoted by a type of preaching that has gripped contemporary pulpits.

In the opening chapters of “Him We Proclaim: Preaching Christ from All the Scriptures” (2007) Dennis Johnson, describes this misleading kind of preaching. This preaching wants hearers to focus on emulating the virtues of Biblical protagonists and renouncing the sins of biblical antagonists. This approach has been called moralistic preaching or “the exemplaristic approach” to preaching (p. 37-43).

The right answer

Then, as a response to moralistic preaching, Johnson promotes the “redemptive-historical approach” to preaching, also known as “reformed preaching” or “Christ-centered preaching.” He points us to Tim Keller as a model practitioner of this approach. Keller labeled his own approach as the “Sanctification by faith-alone” way of preaching (p. 55). This label implies that the problem Keller frequently has to address is a kind of “sanctification by works” mindset in the lives of many Christians.

Then, in a beautiful paragraph, Johnson characterizes Keller’s approach. Here is good, redemptive-historical, gospel-centered preaching:

“What both the believer and the unbeliever need to hear in preaching is the gospel, with its implications for a life lived in confident gratitude in response to amazing grace. Christians are constantly tempted to relapse into legalistic attitudes in their pursuit of sanctification, so we never outgrow our need to hear the good news of God’s free and sovereign grace in Christ. Sanctification, no less than justification, must come by grace alone, through faith alone–we grow more like Christ only by growing more consistent in trusting Christ alone, thinking, feeling, acting ‘in line with the truth of the gospel’ (Gal. 2:14). From this grace alone can flow true sanctification, motivated by gratitude and empowered by the Spirit. We need to repent not only of our sins but also of our righteousness–our efforts at self-atonement in lieu of the surrender to the all-sufficient grace of Christ. Keller traces his discovery of this need of two-fold repentance to George Whitefield’s sermon, ‘The Method of Grace’ (p. 55-56).”

Yes, doing good works or striving against sin are involved in sanctification, but my own effort in killing sin and bearing the fruit of the Spirit–or mortification and vivification–is not the sole basis/cause of sanctification. This hits home hard, and distills concisely what I’ve been seeking to grow into as a Christian—and as a preacher: “to repent not only of our sins but also of our righteousness–our efforts at self-atonement in lieu of the surrender to the all-sufficient grace of Christ.”

I have a High Priest already

I cannot be my own high priest, nor can others be, pronouncing forgiveness, manufacturing peace, granting self-atonement when I consider I have done enough minutes of devotion, prayer, or have refrained for this many days from the vice on the left or the vice on the right. I already have a high priest, Jesus Christ. He sits at God’s right hand. I want to live in him and proclaim him, lifting him up as my all-sufficient object of faith, not only for the past act of God justifying me from the guilt of sin, but also for the present act of the Holy Spirit sanctifying me daily from the power of sin!

“How do we become free from the burden of sin?” It’s by grace alone through faith in Christ alone. Christians often get justification right. But “How do we live in that freedom every day?” This comes through God’s work of sanctification, which also comes by grace alone, through faith in Christ alone.  That’s what you learn by reading or listening to George Whitfield’s sermon “The Method of Grace.”

So, how do we become free from the burden of sin? Believe in Christ. How do we live in that freedom every day? Keep believing in Christ! The answer is the same. Only this time we are keeping an eye on the tendency of the human heart to begin with the Spirit but to try attaining sanctification by the flesh.

The Message

If you want to read the original message delivered in August 2014 at Toledo UBF, here is the link:

Jesus Christ is the Same Yesterday and Today and Forever
Hebrews 13:1-25

My Critique

“I’ve read through the messages you studied over the past five months, and have come to see two things: First, Jesus is better. Secondly, faith in Jesus is the secret of bridging the gap between what we know and how we live.”

I have read through those same messages. The thoughts that come to mind are that those messages are vague, full of ubf loaded language and pathetically void of the gospel messages. So this messenger noticed two things. Jesus is better. Better than what? The Hebrews author makes it very clear what is better and why it is better. And this messenger saw that the secret sauce is “faith in Jesus”. This secret sauce is supposedly what binds the ubf fantasy world (what we know) and the reality around us (how we live). “faith in Jesus” is loaded language for “just believe the ubf heritage without thinking critically”.

“How can we conclude today? Looking at chapter 13 there are many key verses. How can our hearts be strengthened? How can we live as salt and light in a dark and corrupt world? How can we work together with our leaders, and go back to the Bible? The answer is Jesus. Let’s think about him as we conclude this study today.”

Here we have the standard Evangelical thinking “Jesus is the one and only answer to everything and all life’s problems.” We also have more ubf code language. “go back to the bible”… “work together with our leaders”…

“Verse 1 reads, “Keep on loving one another as brothers and sisters.”  In this verse he is talking about Phileo love, or as C.S. Lewis defines it in his book “Four Loves”: Friendship. In Christ, a beautiful community of faith is established among those who believe. This produces an affection for one another. Out of this community of loving and sharing, real and genuine friendships should emerge. What is friendship? One brother in Chicago told me, “I can agape love people by bearing with them, but to actually love them as a brother requires that I like them, get along with them and enjoy being with them. That is much harder.”

This doesn’t smell right to me. C.S. Lewis seems far deeper and more profound than this simplistic idea presented here. We must “get along with them”? We have to enjoy them and like them? This just seems way too simple-minded for me. Lewis surely had a more robust thought in his book.

“I understand. There are many people whom I respect and would trust my life to, but we don’t really have a friendship. Who are your friends?”

At least here the messenger honestly communicates the reality around him. This is the norm for ubf people; they claim to “trust each other unto death” but don’t have even a beer-buddy level of friendship. The reality unspoken here is that ubf people will drop you like an anchor as soon as you question the ubf heritage or display “disloyalty”.

“In church we often put community above friendship, since community is inclusive, while friendship tends to be exclusive. In today’s world people have hundreds of Facebook friends but are so lonely. Some complain, “I don’t have any friends.” The trouble is, friendship isn’t about solving our needs or loneliness.”

Again, I appreciate the honesty here; ubf is a community that disparages actual friendships. Ubf is an environment where “community” comes first. I can hear the messenger’s lonely heart crying out here. “Some complain…” that is ubf messenger speak for “I complain… I am the one who is lonely…”

“Jesus loved us sacrificially and one-sidedly. But Jesus also had friends, his disciples. What was their friendship about? He tells them in John 15:14-15, “You are my friends if you do what I command. ¹⁵ I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.” Jesus’ friends are those who share in his Father’s business. Who are your friends? To keep such love dynamically in our community, we take a risk to share our hearts.”

After a veiled expression of his own loneliness, the messenger now justifies his friendless and superficial life with the classic ubf verse John 15:14-15. Friendship cannot be separated from obedience in the ubf mind. In the ubf mind, we must imitate this—calling people our servants first and then hoping they obey us until we can break through and have friendship. But this path is not what Jesus is prescribing here. Jesus is teaching about His Lordship, something this messenger fails to grasp in the slightest.

“Verse 2 reads, “Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it.” What is hospitality? “the friendly and generous reception and entertainment of guests, visitors, or strangers.” In those days such hospitality carried great weight, as inns were few and far between, and generally houses of ill-repute. Welcoming a stranger may seem burdensome, especially to wives, who sometimes think there is an expectation to have a perfectly manicured home and deliciously extravagant meal. But fundamentally hospitality is a welcoming attitude. Jesus had no home. But Jesus had a spirit of hospitality, and taught his disciples to practice this: “Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me (9:37).” When we invite a stranger into our home, we may be welcoming one of Jesus’ angels. He may send “secret strangers,” to see if we will welcome them. This gives a unique opportunity to reveal Jesus in our world today.”

Ugh… more ubf loaded language. Ubf makes a BIG DEAL about “welcoming strangers”. You must open your house after a conference to “welcome guests” and “show hospitality”. Otherwise you are disobeying Jesus and you won’t want to disobey Jesus right? The messenger now goes into what I call “drone mode”. He just repeatedly fires bible verses and a flippant, unthoughtful response to each verse. But one stands out:

“Verse 4 reads, “Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.” In that time, ascetics felt it was better not to marry, and that marriage was an unnecessary indulgence since Jesus would come back soon. But God created marriage before sin came into the world. Marriage supersedes the fall, and the law and the church. He who does not honor marriage does not honor God who created marriage. Jesus described his coming as a wedding banquet, and Paul said our marriage reflects the mystery of Christ’s union with the church. Do I honor my marriage? Since it is a private thing, we may not think it important. But God knows, and what he has joined together, man should not separate. Included in this is healthy sexual behavior. Society changes moral standards and even redefines marriage. But we honor our marriages, knowing that God’s standard and blessing in marriage does not change.”

Really??? You gotta be kidding me! ubf “honors marriage”? Not after you get married. After marriage you are expected to live like single college students! What about all the arranged marriages and threats of divorce or threats of not being able to marry someone you like? I’m so furious I will refrain from my litany of wrath since I’m posting this publicly…

“Second, spiritual leadership and the word of God (7-19). Verse 7 reads, “Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.” This seems to indicate past leaders whose life of faith was now over and subject to examination. Their way of life led to a glorious outcome: a fruitful and victorious life resulting in the kingdom of God. Why was it so? They put their faith in Jesus Christ. The world changes all the time. Situations and methods change, but Jesus never changes. Verse 8 reads, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.” Faith in Jesus includes our faithful ancestors into the hallowed halls of the heroes of faith. The question is: how can we imitate their faith in unchanging Jesus, and pass that faith on to those who follow us?”

Can anyone say ancestor worship? Why in the world bring up “our faithful ancestors”? Why are we talking about dead people here? I can only guess.

“One thing that sticks out brightly in this verse is the word of God, which has power to change and give life. Through the teaching of God’s word the Hebrews accepted the gospel and were saved. Although the early apostles were not learned men of power and wealth, they were people of great influence who changed the world by teaching the word of God. Their spiritual leadership bears fruit through the ages. We need to remember these leaders, and all who followed them.”

Here we see the teachings of Samuel Lee shining brightly. Note the self-aggrandizing, self-comforting nature of this paragraph. Ah ubf bible teachers are SO important! Ah we may be labeled as a cult and maybe we hurt so many people and did so many bad things, but we are SO important. Sounds like the colonel in “A Few Good Men”… “you need me on that wall! You want me on that wall!”

“There are many kinds of leaders with many kinds of teachings competing for our attention. But verses 9-10 read, “Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings. It is good for our hearts to be strengthened by grace, not by eating ceremonial foods, which is of no benefit to those who do so. ¹⁰ We have an altar from which those who minister at the tabernacle have no right to eat.” The Jews had spiritual leaders, who emphasized ceremony and ritual.”

So now we are not talking about ubf leaders but Jewish leaders?

“Through the eating of certain foods you could be righteous or unclean. But these activities did not strengthen hearts in a good way. Rather, they led to self-righteousness when they did well and to utter despair when they failed. Strange teachings are contrary to the word of God.”

Indeed! Why doesn’t this messenger examine ubf’s strange teachings? Isn’t this the most hypocritical writing you’ve heard in a long time?

“When we read the word of God, we are pointed to Jesus. Jesus’ grace is what strengthens our hearts to bear with and obey all the exhortations of the word of God. Sometimes faith in the gospel of Jesus’ grace seems weak compared to self-righteousness, and we often feel harassed by guilt and shame. We need grace!”

Well maybe we are pointed to Jesus. I found that usually the word of God points me to another person—someone I need to apologize to or to befriend or to notice. Note the horrendous understanding of grace. Faith in the gospel seems weak?!? No way! Faith in the gospel ALWAYS is strong and powerful and mighty. Grace only seems weak if you have no idea what grace is. Grace is not simply power to obey better. If so, grace would not be grace.

“My eldest son is 10 years old. He is a soft-hearted and compassionate kid. From last year he started to give us attitude, and breaks down in angry, frustrated tears from time to time. I began to realize that in relating to him I’m full of expectations, and not grace. I never wanted to be the father who exasperates his children, but I did so. This is the difference between strange teachings and the gospel. What is the food you are trying to strengthen yourself with and take your stand on? Is it accomplishments, spiritual behaviors, relationships, other things? Our hearts are weak with pride and with sin. We need the grace of Jesus, the grace secured to us by a far superior altar, on which to stand (Ro 5:2).”

I find this vague and disturbing. I find the gospel messages absent here. Is it just me?

“To trust in Jesus and his grace alone will invite misunderstanding and disgrace from those who support a strange teaching, focused on legalistic righteousness in this world.”

Yes, and it will invoke the wrath of ubf leaders if you actually do trust in grace alone.

“The USA, once thought of as a Christian nation, is becoming increasingly hostile. But that is ok; our enduring city cannot be found on this world using google maps; yet we live in hope in the city that is to come. With this hope we live by faith in Jesus, who never changes, and we take our stand in his grace, not our righteousness.”

That is ok? Why is it ok and fine to become increasingly hostile? This is a clear expression of the ubf mindset which is living in a fantasy world and disconnected from reality. To say “peace, peace” or “safety, safety” when there is no peace or safety is a dangerous way to think. There are some freaky things going on right now, which the messenger mentions, but instead of allowing people to express their emotion, he just says “that’s ok”….

“In response to Jesus’ sacrifice, we are encouraged to offer two of our own: Verses 15-16 read, “Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise – the fruit of lips that openly profess his name. ¹⁶ And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased.”  When we live by ceremonial foods, we praise ourselves. But when we live by faith, and our hearts are strengthened by grace, we praise God, not ourselves.”

So sacrifice is a two-for-one deal now? Jesus sacrificed once (and for all). But we have to sacrifice twice? I don’t think that is what God intended to teach here. And maybe the messenger should examine ubf’s self-praise here?

“How can we continually offer to God this sacrifice of praise? Only through Jesus, whose love and grace never changes. His forgiveness, love and direction are new each morning, and each generation. But as we continually offer to God this sacrifice, we must not forget to do good and share with others. Jesus’ love language is obedience, for he said, “If you love me, keep my commands (Jn 14:15).” What did Jesus command? Jesus said: “My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you (Jn 15:12).”  These sacrifices are pleasing to God, and pleasing God makes his children happy.”

More circular logic that binds the audience back to obedience. Ugh.

“True spiritual leadership speaks the word of God and leaves a legacy of faith in Jesus. We see that example of faith in Jesus yesterday through those who came before: those who taught the word of God to us. But Jesus is the same today, and we therefore have leaders whose faith we are to imitate to day as well. Verse 17 reads, “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account. Do this so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no benefit to you.” Jesus has appointed leaders and will call them to account for keeping watch over us. So we are exhorted to obey and submit to them.”

So because Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever, our LEADERS are also those from yesterday, today and forever? This is some of the worst Hebrews teaching I’ve read.

“Who are your leaders in Toledo UBF? Do you know who they are? They are the ones who speak the word of God to you. They are the ones who are accountable to God. Let’s decide to obey and submit to their authority, and work together in joy, not in burden. As we do so, we may experience Jesus Christ today, and leave an example of faith for those who follow to experience Jesus tomorrow and forever.”

OMG! WTF? Note the blatant disregard for Scripture here! The messenger just says “obey your leaders” and SKIPS the qualifying verses! The author of Hebrews qualifies such obedience, but this messenger intentionally SKIPS verses 18 and 19. And after this, the messenger just quickly ends the message by emphasizing the key verse he chose.

Let’s read those verses shall we? “18 Pray for us, for we are sure that we have a clear conscience, desiring to act honorably in all things.19 I urge you the more earnestly to do this in order that I may be restored to you the sooner.”

Is there any ubf leader who has a clean conscience? Do they lead with any kind of conscience at all? Do they desire to act honorably in ALL things or just ubf things?

My Rating

1 star – monkey (flawed, confusing, disheartening)

This messenger doesn’t know what he is doing. Or perhaps he does know, in which case he is highly deceptive and manipulative. They have major flaws in their understanding of the material they are presenting. They don’t speak or write well. Typically this kind of messenger is just putting on a show, trying to perform. These messages are just lectures giving information. This messenger has a lot of learning to do and really shouldn’t be in the pulpit.

“God’s love is conditional upon our obedience.”
Me:”What?”

“We must hate God’s enemies.”
Me: “Are you serious right now?”

Until about a year ago I thought that heresy came in two forms, early first century church heresy involving the divinity of Christ and modern ideas of moral relativity, religious pluralism, and a general denial of miracles. Oh was I mistaken.

What is heresy?

It is important to define heresy first. Heresy is any belief that defies doctrine. The first thing to point out is that all churches have doctrine. Scripture cleaves to doctrine. If you fail to express what your doctrine is you will still have it. A good example of this might be if a church fails to note a doctrine claiming that “All you need is to love Jesus.” A church might view loving Jesus as making disciples and doing bible study and ignore the possibility that the religion our father finds favor with is that which cares for orphans and widows. But heresy isn’t just an ignorance of a belief; it is an actual belief. “We are a discipleship making church, therefore we don’t minister to orphans and widows.” is a heretical statement. A heretic is a baptized believer who believes a heresy. There is a very good reason to take heresy seriously. Since the start of the church what made you Christian has been what you believe. It is the marking of a Christian. Partly in response to the first heresies involving the divinity of Jesus the Council of Nicaea was formed. A major result is the Nicene Creed. Those who believe in the creed are called Christians.

Calling someone a heretic has historically been among the worst labels to have. It ranks slightly above apostate and witch. It is important to note that heretics mean well. Heretics usually fail in one of two ways: it says too much (removing all mystery by explaining the unexplainable) or doesn’t go far enough (failing to maintain the full radicalness of orthodox Christianity and replacing it with a more “applicable” solution). In my first example above the man attempts to remove the radicaliness of the grace of God by making our salvation our work. In the second example he removes the radicalness of the Jesus’ teaching in Mat 5:33-34. Most early Christian heresies on the trinity are examples of explaining the unexplainable.

So what?

To conclude I am sure many of you are thinking “So what?” Isn’t this all just theological fine points that ignore the two great commands of Jesus? Bad theology leads to bad practices. I have seen and heard of bad theology lead to legalism, family abuse, feelings of isolation and loneliness, and even atheism. Good theology must exist because bad theology exists. Bad theology leads to bad practices and bad practices leads to pain, suffering, and sorrow. I might be a little out of my league with this essay. I hope that you might point out any faults you find as I am sure there are many.

How has heresy affected you? How do you deal with it? How do you love the heretic?

I’ve come to the realization the past several years that following Christ and His teachings is far more about learning how to love than learning how to obey the commands found in the Old Testament. At first I felt guilty. Shouldn’t Christians be striving to obey the 10 Commandments? My answer now is an emphatic, guilt-free “no!”.  My “yes” is the gospel and my “no” is the Law. Here is why.

Seven teachings of Paul the Apostle

In the past four years or so I’ve done more actual study of the bible than I did for the prior 20+ years. I actually love the Holy Scriptures now. And I respect them deeply, striving to discern what the Scriptures are saying. I cannot say my current theology resembles what Spurgeon or Wright would approve. However, both Charles H. Spurgeon and N.T. Wright have deeply influenced what I’ve learned and how I approach Scripture.

Teaching #1 – Striving to obey the OT Law is a cursed way of life.

A full Galatians, Romans and Ephesians study is warranted here, which I did in my personal bible study a couple years ago. Galatians 3:10 expresses this teaching most clearly: “All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.'”

Teaching #2 – The OT Law is no longer our supervisor for right and wrong

How do we know what is right and wrong without the Law? I’m not an anarchist, so I believe in laws in society. And I’m in favor of documented laws in churches. But in practice, as we live and how we determine those laws, those laws really should no longer be checked against the OT Law. They should be checked against love. Again, we must read and study all of Galatians and many more texts. But Galatians 3:25 and Galatians 4:21 express this clearly: “Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.” and “Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says?”

Teaching #3 – The OT Law been nailed to the cross

A full study of Colossians is warranted here. This teaching is a point of contention, even among the greats, as to what “nailing to the cross” means. Still, Colossians 2:13-15 expresses this clearly: When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.”

Teaching #4 -The OT Law has been fulfilled

I found that I didn’t really understand the word “fulfillment”. And thus I was confused by Jesus’ words. The OT Law was not abolished, so it does exist today. And the Law was not nullified, so it has a purpose (Romans). My contention is that the resolution to the Law not being abolished and not nullified is the teaching from Jesus that He fulfilled the Law. I find that Matthew 5:17-20 has been greatly misunderstood and misapplied. “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.  I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.  For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.”

Teaching #5 – The OT Law has a purpose to teach us about Jesus

In Acts we read the story of Philip being led by the Spirit to Gaza where he meets an Ethiopian eunuch, who was reading Isaiah. Did Philip or the Holy Spirit want this Ethiopian to learn about obeying the OT Law? No. He was taught the good news about Jesus. Acts 8:34-35 “The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.”

Teaching #6 – The OT Law is not for Gentiles to strive to obey

When the early church was confronted with what to teach to the Gentiles, what did they teach them? They shared only three (four) things. This was their letter:

Acts 15: 23-29  With them they sent the following letter:

The apostles and elders, your brothers,

To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:

Greetings.

We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

Farewell.

Teaching #7 – The OT Law is an all or nothing proposition

So suppose I decide to obey the OT Law. Which part of it? Many have tried to dissect the Law, breaking it up into manageable chunks. But always it is discovered that these chunks are not manageable at all. We cannot ignore any part of the OT Law. We must either obey all of it, or admit failure even for breaking the least of the commands. Again, Galatians says this best. Galatians 5:2-4 “Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.”

There are many other passages that teach the same thing: God’s Law is not binding nor unifying on Christians, but the Spirit of God is binding and unifying.

Two teachings of Jesus

Teaching #1 – Jesus’ standard is infinitely higher than the OT Law

Jesus turned the OT Law upside down in the Sermon on the Mount.  And after expounding brilliantly, what did He conclude with? Did he say “Now go and obey the OT Law?” For the Jewish leper he healed right after the Sermon, yes he did say that. But in the Sermon, the sermon He knew would be heard by millions of Gentiles, Jesus concludes with this “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.” Matthew 7:24-29

Teaching #2 – Jesus’ standard is love for others

Who will be in Heaven? Jesus simply asks a question: Did you visit Me? “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’”  Matthew 25:31-46

Love is a full-time job

I am compelled to stop worrying about whether getting a tattoo is right or wrong. Loving your self, your neighbors, your friends, your family, your strangers and your enemies is a full-time job. There is so much to learn about how to love our fellow human beings, especially those closest to us.

What kind of world would this be if we all stopped worrying about what is right or wrong about other people and started to learn how to love?

I hear Jesus saying “Go and learn how to love. I’ve got your sins covered.” I’ve decided to do just that.

[This is a direct quote form my second book about my journey of recovery from ubf, “Goodness Found: The Butterfly Narratives” and further describes the ubf training model.]

The most important aspect everyone needs to understand about UBF ministry is the six-stage training process. When I joined in 1987, no one had ever documented such a thing. But as I look back, I can clearly see all six stages. Everyone’s experience is different. Yet all UBF people should readily recognize these six stages. The following slide describes the UBF training model, and has been shared publicly by UBF from their 2010 Fishing and Outreach Director’s Conference. This is the most accurate depiction of my 24 years at UBF I’ve ever seen.

It’s no surprise that the stages are presented in a circular pattern because every time the process fails, UBF missionaries just start all over with a new person. As I progressed through each of the six training stages, I had hoped to find the goodness UBF bible teachers promised. Instead, I found goodness re-defined. UBF became my “good”. And not only did I pass through all six stages of training, I then attempted to train other students in the UBF ways as a UBF shepherd.

The first three stages of UBF training may be categorized as “sheep training”. The goal is to secure a person’s commitment to the UBF ways. The UBF leaders seek to produce a person committed to weekly UBF bible study (Stage 1: Birthing), a person willing to adopt the UBF worldview (Stage 2: Rooting) and a person willing to continue the training and become a UBF shepherd (Stage 3: Growing).

The second three stages of UBF training may be categorized as “shepherd training”. The goal is to secure a person’s resources for the rest of their life. UBF leaders want a person’s identity (Stage 4: Disciple Training), a person’s obedience (Stage 5: Soldier Training) and a person’s lifelong loyalty (Stage 6: Leader Training).

The content of these six stages may be adjusted for each student UBF encounters. The overall plan takes about 7 to 9 years and is practiced with some degree of consistency by UBF chapters around the world. One question though: What do you do after Stage 6? The expectation is that you live as a lifelong UBF loyalist and recruiter.

[Appendix D is added here for clarity]

Sheep Training (up to 5 years)

Stage 1: Birthing (1 to 9 months)

Goal – commit to bible study

Starts after first bible study

Stage 2: Rooting (1 to 2 years)

Goal – adopt the UBF worldview

Starts after Sunday service attendance

Stage 3: Growing (1 to 2 years)

Goal – pursue more training

Starts after sharing Life Testimony

Shepherd Training (2 to 4 years)

Stage 4: Disciple Training (about 1 year)

Goal – identity as “Shepherd X”

Starts after joining common life

Stage 5: Soldier Training (1 to 2 years)

Goal – obedience to UBF authorities

Starts after college graduation

Stage 6: Leader Training (about 1 year)

Goal – loyalty for life

Starts after Marriage by Faith

Stage 1, the “birthing” stage, is often rather enjoyable. This stage begins with a chance meeting on campus with a college student. It is important to note that in the UBF heritage, the person must be a college student to be considered for the six-stage training. Other non-college people may hang around UBF chapters for a while, but will likely be seen as a distraction to the UBF world campus mission.

The random invitation to bible study on campus between a UBF bible teacher and a new student is seen as a divine birth-moment. The person who invited the student becomes the personal, life-long moral supervisor for the student, who is now referred to as his or her “sheep”. This process is called “fishing for men on campus” and is the pivotal moment that will be used year after year to convince the student that their old life was bad and their new UBF life is blessed and good. I was already a Christian before my “birth-moment” but this did not matter to UBF shepherds. They see any pre-UBF life in a mostly-negative, unblessed light. This enhances the perspective that the student’s new life at UBF is good and blessed.

In this first stage, the training amounts to a once a week bible study with a self-appointed, personal shepherd. Much emphasis is placed on finding a new life and new relationships through bible study. Because the bible is the focus of this new UBF life, some actual transformation caused by the Christian faith will normally also be taking place at the same time the UBF training occurs. This dual nature of UBF training and Christian faith awakening makes for an extremely complex entanglement. How can you discern what good came from UBF training and what good came from faith in God? Over time, this line becomes so blurred that UBF becomes equal to God in your mind.

Any student who is “birthed” into UBF bible study is carefully watched. UBF shepherds look to see if there is any interest in bible study and will pursue a new student aggressively. The acceptance of UBF bible study (called one-to-one study) is seen as some divine intervention and a sign for the UBF bible teacher to initiate invitations to more meetings and activities. During this first stage, the student is offered much good food and flattered with many good words. Often this stage has many fun activities, such as playing soccer or basketball. All this is done as every event in the student’s life is given proof-texted value from the bible.

The goal of stage 1 is to birth a committed bible student. The primary sign that a committed bible student has been “raised” is Sunday service attendance. When a student regularly attends both weekly bible study and Sunday service, the student is now deemed “faithful” and has been birthed. UBF shepherds often refer to real birth, quoting fertility rates and making analogies to birthing pains and motherhood, to explain what happens during Stage 1 to get a random college student to become a committed Sunday attendee and bible student. Sometimes this first stage takes several months but rarely will a UBF bible teacher wait longer than a year for such a commitment. If a student has not committed to UBF bible study and Sunday service within a year, the bible teacher normally moves onto find someone else. Some UBF shepherds severely challenge the students after a year passes. They want students to make a clear decision: accept UBF blessing or leave. This is often also framed negatively: If you don’t commit to UBF, you will be cursed. I heard many tall tales of accidents, disease and horrible events that were supposed to happen if someone leaves UBF, which is often called “running away”. In my case, the “running away” was additionally framed as “losing your faith” and “going to hell”.

Stage 2, the “rooting” stage, begins when a new student demonstrates a commitment to UBF bible study and Sunday services regularly. Stage 2 can last between one and two years normally. When a student is found to be committed to UBF, the flattery and praise the student experienced in Stage 1 slowly disappears. Now the UBF bible teacher begins to insist on the student’s attendance at other meetings, such as a weekly testimony sharing meeting and often several other meetings held throughout the week. During this “rooting” students are pressured to take on additional duties and roles at their UBF chapter. One of the famous roles is bathroom cleaning servant. Many other kinds of servant roles are made up, such as parking lot servant, Sunday report servant and morning prayer servant. The students are taught the supreme UBF values of loyalty, sacrifice, service and obedience in this stage.

During the rooting stage, students are typically also taught to forget about their pre-UBF friends and family members, who may be “bad company” for their new life. Because the Stage 1 flattery taught the student that UBF has blessings for them, and new genuine spiritual awakening may also be taking place, the student is more open to attending the new meetings and adopting the UBF worldview.

This second stage is where intense personal interest is shown by the UBF members. The goal of Stage 2 is to produce a sheep who understands and adopts the UBF view of life. UBF shepherds understand that Stage 2 often takes several years, so they are patient and oscillate between periods of high-demand pressure and low-demand, cooling off periods. A student will be pushed as far as they can take, and then the shepherd will back off. And then later the pressure will start again. The student thinks they are taking root in the bible, but the reality is that UBF ideologies are also taking root in the student. Almost every detail of the student’s life becomes known through the weekly sharing. The students’ family situation, job situation, hobbies, interests, girlfriends/boyfriends, sins, talents—everything is asked about by inquisitive UBF members. All of this information is fed back to the chapter director and the student’s personal shepherd by means of prayer topics, which are always written down and often compiled electronically. As a side note, one story I love to tell is that I was the first UBF shepherd in my chapter to compile my weekly bible studies entirely on a computer. More than one Korean UBF missionary told me this was an unspiritual way to answer bible study question sheets. They said that Satan was ready to “sift me as wheat” because I did not sacrifice my time to prepare my notes by hand.

The rooting stage normally culminates in the sharing of what UBF calls a “life testimony”. This is a special kind of testimony shared at a weekend retreat or other gathering of many UBF people. Those who do not share such a testimony are not called shepherds and are not permitted to proceed on in the UBF training. Typically the life testimony is a binary format, with titles such as “From a lazy, no-good sinner to a faithful, fruitful shepherd!”. The main requirement is a bold declaration that the person wants to become a UBF shepherd. A stark contrast is drawn between the student’s former, non-UBF life and the student’s new, blessed, UBF life. Often the goal here is to break down a student’s defenses, requiring them to stay up all night or to get up very early in the morning, so that the teachings of the UBF shepherd can be instilled into the person’s life testimony. Portions of the life testimony are routinely re-written or dictated by the UBF shepherd or chapter director.

In addition, the bible’s Old Testament teachings are usually heavily emphasized during these first three stages, so much so that the “obedience equals blessing and disobedience equals curse” is deeply ingrained in the student’s thinking. One main problem that arises is that no distinction is made between God and UBF.

Stage 3, called “growing” is the most vague to me, as it seems the only purpose is to convince the new bible student (“sheep”) that it is necessary and good for them to continue growing and accept more UBF training as a “shepherd”. The word “growing” is used a lot during this period. Are you growing? Why are you not growing? When are you going to grow? The word is vague and thus allows room for some unusual and confusing experiences. This “growing” stage can be volatile as you start to be invited to more and more behind-the-scenes meetings. I noticed the more committed I was perceived to be, the more gossip and information would be shared with me. During this stage, I often was the first person to a meeting and the last person to leave. I wanted to know for myself what was going on.

One common trait of Stage 3 training, for “growing sheep” or sometimes “shepherd candidates”, is something called common life. Sheep are asked to move into a house or apartment with other UBF sheep and shepherds (if the student has not moved into common life by now), all of whom are “growing” in different stages of UBF training. Often the chapter director will gather similarly-ranked sheep into groups. One such group I was in was called “The Rocky’s of Faith”. Another group of young women was called “Mary’s of Faith”. All sheep and shepherds are ranked and tracked by the Korean chapter director.

Stage 4, called “disciple training” is where the real training starts. This is the beginning of shepherd life, to use a UBF phrase. [Stage 4 often begins after a sheep begins common life, but sometimes begins right away after the retreat or conference where a person had shared his or her life testimony.] This stage is normally when a person notices the vicious UBF rumor mill, which was most likely hidden from them during the “sheep” training years.

During stage 4, the student’s UBF shepherd will continue to spend much time with the student. Daily meetings are typical of this stage. Weekly trips to the local college campus associated with the UBF chapter will become mandatory. I saw much heartache in my friends during this state. One of my friends couldn’t take the intrusiveness of his shepherd. So one night he packed up his bags and climbed out the window at night. He just disappeared, never to be heard from again. This stage lasts usually about one or two years and is very intense. Much is demanded from the student at this point because he is a “UBF Shepherd” and expected to set the example.

One of the things that kept me going during stage 4 training was the thought that I would graduate, get a job and move on with my life. But always the question was posed during this time: Will you serve God for the rest of your life? At this point UBF=God, so I spent many nights in anguish, thinking I was engaging in a holy fight like Jacob who wrestled with God.

Stage 5 is called “Soldier Training”. Typically, Stage 5 begins soon after graduating from college. Sometimes, the first 3 stages of “Sheep Training” take all the time of the student’s college years, however. UBF shepherds really want a student “sheep” to become a UBF shepherd during college years. This is a rare occurrence in my observation. So college graduation becomes an intense time of coaxing a “shepherd declaration” from a student, if the training has progressed too slowly. If the first four stages progress as planned however, the new college graduate is ready for Soldier Training.

Stage 5 is marked by all kinds of made up training, at the discretion of the shepherd. A common training is called marriage training (although a marriage “problem” can result in training at any stage). The strict “no dating” policy is made clear at this point. UBF leaders know that they risk losing a student who graduates. So sometimes UBF offers a “staff internship” or other “full-time shepherd” position in Stage 5. This is normally not a paid position but sometimes is paid from UBF offering money. The goal of the UBF chapter director at this point is to keep the student in his own chapter at all costs. The exception is if the student is too independent and stubborn then the chapter director will allow the student to move to another UBF chapter, but usually only if there is some commitment to a marriage-by-faith arrangement. Stage 5 is similar to Stage 4, but more intense. I would call “soldier training” to be “disciple training” on steroids.

My “soldier training” consisted of a plethora of meetings, early in the morning and late at night, conference leadership preparation roles, and doing various duties for the the chapter director. I became an “offering servant”, “Sunday attendance servant” and “cleaning servant”. The pressure in stage 5 is extremely high to go to your local campus and recruit new bible students (called fishing). This involves weekly reporting of your fishing results. During all this you have no time to date, and wonder how you will be married. So after being broken down, you allow your shepherd to choose your wife (called co-worker in UBF). In my first book I shared how I beat this arranged marriage system to marry the woman I wanted.

The culmination of Soldier Training (Stage 5) is a successful arranged marriage, called “marriage by faith” in UBF terminology. Any real leadership position or missionary-sending work is done by married men. Rarely does UBF allow single adults or women to hold significant leadership positions with any kind of decision-making authority.

Stage 6, “Leader Training” begins after “marriage by faith” and is marked by slogans such as “learn a father-like heart”. At this point all flattery is gone. Severe criticism and harsh rebukes are commonplace. UBF missionaries often seem to forget that the shepherd is married and is building his own family at this point. One of my friends got a phone call the day after their first honeymoon night to come to the UBF center for some kind of meeting. After my own marriage, I was asked to sleep at the UBF bible center in order to set a good example to unmarried brothers who were “cleaning servants”. I was supposed to demonstrate that I was not a family-centered man but was a mission-centered man. I refused and slept with my wife at home instead.

What options exist after Stage 6? Not much is documented after Stage 6 of the UBF training. I passed through all six stages and can share what I experienced. In some sense, married couples in UBF are slowly forgotten, their needs marginalized and their loyalty and participation assumed. At this point, you are spending 40 to 60 hours per week with UBF activities and trying to build a family while keeping a full-time job.

One option after Stage 6 is to become and official UBF member. I was shocked to discover that after 20 years of UBF devotion, I was not actually a member! UBF has a set of corporate by-laws, with official offices of President, Treasurer, etc. Such by-laws provide for the establishment of a council with nominated members who can vote on various topics. I believe all this is for show however. Real decisions in UBF are made by Korean missionaries. But in order to retain membership in the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA), which the Chicago UBF chapter joined in 2007, UBF maintains a council of official members. At no time during the 24 years I committed to UBF was I asked to be a “member” at this council. So the qualifications to be a council member are vague and likely subjective. Perhaps I was deemed too rebellious, independent, or not loyal enough.

Summary

In summary, the UBF training system can be explained by the six stages: birthing, growing, rooting, disciple training, soldier training and leader training.

Because about 2,000 UBF Korean missionaries have gone to over 180 countries the past 50 years, there are many thousands of stories to tell about the training methods of UBF. And thus there are many variations to the training. However I have found that the six stages I describe are strikingly common among UBF chapters around the world.

Transitions between the stages occur when a college student attend Sunday services, shares his/her life testimony, moves into a common life house, graduates from college and accepts the arranged marriage process. The training ends there, as you are then expected to be eternally loyal as a supposed world-class UBF leader. I found that I was only “world-class” in one thing: in my ability to sit on a folding chair and listen to the same regurgitated messages year after year.

Question 1: What does it mean to be “faithful”?

This is a question I had when I studied about Abraham from Romans in UBF. I was confused what the difference between God being faithful, man being faithful, and what it meant to be a “man of faith”. I got varying answers, and I also got the old “Doing UBF activities makes you faithful.” vibe as well. Here is what the pontiff says:

“In the Bible, faith is expressed by the Hebrew word ’emûn?h, derived from the verb ’am?n whose root means “to uphold”. The term ’emûn?h can signify both God’s fidelity and man’s faith. The man of faith gains strength by putting himself in the hands of the God who is faithful. Playing on this double meaning of the word — also found in the corresponding terms in Greek (pistós) and Latin (fidelis) — Saint Cyril of Jerusalem praised the dignity of the Christian who receives God’s own name: both are called “faithful”.[8] As Saint Augustine explains: “Man is faithful when he believes in God and his promises; God is faithful when he grants to man what he has promised”

Question 2: What is “faith”? Can I have faith without actions? Is the physical appearance of faith what God desires?

Here Francis answers the question by dividing faith into two forms. There is the faith which brings salvation and the ecclesial faith. Of the former he says:

“The life of faith, as a filial existence, is the acknowledgment of a primordial and radical gift which upholds our lives. We see this clearly in Saint Paul’s question to the Corinthians: “What have you that you did not receive?” (1 Cor 4:7). This was at the very heart of Paul’s debate with the Pharisees: the issue of whether salvation is attained by faith or by the works of the law. Paul rejects the attitude of those who would consider themselves justified before God on the basis of their own works. Such people, even when they obey the commandments and do good works, are centred on themselves; they fail to realize that goodness comes from God.”

In some sense our faith is personal. After all, we cannot observe if someone does good deeds for their own glory or God’s. This idea of legalism as a byproduct of focusing on one’s self was something I never explicitly connected. Of the ecclesial faith he remarks:

“Faith is necessarily ecclesial; it is professed from within the body of Christ as a concrete communion of believers. It is against this ecclesial backdrop that faith opens the individual Christian towards all others. Christ’s word, once heard, by virtue of its inner power at work in the heart of the Christian, becomes a response, a spoken word, a profession of faith. As Saint Paul puts it: “one believes with the heart … and confesses with the lips” (Rom 10:10). Faith is not a private matter, a completely individualistic notion or a personal opinion: it comes from hearing, and it is meant to find expression in words and to be proclaimed. For “how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher?” (Rom 10:14). Faith becomes operative in the Christian on the basis of the gift received, the love which attracts our hearts to Christ (cf. Gal 5:6), and enables us to become part of the Church’s great pilgrimage through history until the end of the world. For those who have been transformed in this way, a new way of seeing opens up, faith becomes light for their eyes.”

It is debatable that this ecclesial faith is actually a work. I agree with the pontiff here, and I think that many in UBF preach that this form of faith is faith.

Question 3: Is theology worthwhile? Is too much “head knowledge” bad? Isn’t faith all we need?

This question has been more of an accusation recently. Although it is an accusation which I fear might have some merit. Francis says:

“Since faith is a light, it draws us into itself, inviting us to explore ever more fully the horizon which it illumines, all the better to know the object of our love. Christian theology is born of this desire. Clearly, theology is impossible without faith; it is part of the very process of faith, which seeks an ever deeper understanding of God’s self-disclosure culminating in Christ. It follows that theology is more than simply an effort of human reason to analyze and understand, along the lines of the experimental sciences. God cannot be reduced to an object… Theology thus demands the humility to be “touched” by God, admitting its own limitations before the mystery, while striving to investigate, with the discipline proper to reason, the inexhaustible riches of this mystery…Theology also shares in the ecclesial form of faith; its light is the light of the believing subject which is the Church. This implies, on the one hand, that theology must be at the service of the faith of Christians, that it must work humbly to protect and deepen the faith of everyone, especially ordinary believers.”

Question 4: What can be said about faith and its relation to marriage and family?

It seems self evident that faith must be involved in marriage. The problems with “marriage by faith” are well documented by now. What does Francis say?

“In Abraham’s journey towards the future city, the Letter to the Hebrews mentions the blessing which was passed on from fathers to sons (cf. Heb 11:20-21). The first setting in which faith enlightens the human city is the family. I think first and foremost of the stable union of man and woman in marriage. This union is born of their love, as a sign and presence of God’s own love, and of the acknowledgment and acceptance of the goodness of sexual differentiation, whereby spouses can become one flesh (cf. Gen 2:24) and are enabled to give birth to a new life, a manifestation of the Creator’s goodness, wisdom and loving plan. Grounded in this love, a man and a woman can promise each other mutual love in a gesture which engages their entire lives and mirrors many features of faith. Promising love for ever is possible when we perceive a plan bigger than our own ideas and undertakings, a plan which sustains us and enables us to surrender our future entirely to the one we love. Faith also helps us to grasp in all its depth and richness the begetting of children, as a sign of the love of the Creator who entrusts us with the mystery of a new person. So it was that Sarah, by faith, became a mother, for she trusted in God’s fidelity to his promise (cf. Heb 11:11).”

This letter contains many other amazing passages relating to hope, faith, and suffering. I highly recommend it to everyone:

ENCYCLICAL LETTER
LUMEN FIDEI
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
FRANCIS
TO THE BISHOPS PRIESTS AND DEACONS
CONSECRATED PERSONS
AND THE LAY FAITHFUL
ON FAITH.

You didn’t do what I want! “Legalism is the tendency to regard as divine law things that God has neither required nor forbidden in Scripture, and the corresponding inclination to look with suspicion on others for their failure or refusal to conform.”

Become my slave. “There are professing Christians, who are determined to bring you under their religious thumb. They are bent on making you a slave of their conscience. They have built a tidy religious box…and they strive to stuff you inside and make you conform to its dimensions. They are legalists, and their tools are guilt, fear, intimidation, and self-righteousness. They proclaim God’s unconditional love for you, but insist on certain conditions before including you among the accepted, approved elite of God’s favored few.”

Conform and be controlled. “I’m not talking about people who insist that you obey certain laws or moral rules in order to be saved. Such people aren’t legalists. They are lost! They are easily identified and rebuffed. I’m talking about Christian legalists whose goal is to enforce conformity among other Christians in accordance with their personal preferences. They are lifestyle legalists. They heap condemnation and contempt of your head so that your life is controlled and energized by fear rather than freedom and joy and delight in God.”

Legalists NEVER think they are legalists. “Rarely would these folk ever admit to any of this. They don’t perceive or portray themselves as legalists. If they are reading this, they are convinced I’m talking about someone else. They’d never introduce themselves: ‘Hi, My name is Abraham (or Isaac or Jacob, etc). I’m a legalist and my goal is to steal your joy and keep you in bondage to my religious prejudices. Can I tell you all the things you’re doing wrong?’”

Please live in fear. “Some of you are either legalists or more likely victims of legalism. You live in fear of doing something that another Christian considers unholy, even though the Bible is silent on the subject. You are terrified of incurring others’ disapproval, disdain, and ultimate rejection. Worse still, you fear God’s rejection for violating religious traditions or cultural norms that have no basis in Scripture but are prized by legalists. You have been duped into believing that the slightest misstep or mistake will bring down God’s disapproval and disgust.”

Do you feel light or heavy? “When you are around other Christians, whether in church or before your leader(s):

• Do you feel free?
• Does your spirit feel relaxed or oppressed?
• Do you sense their acceptance or condemnation?
• Do you feel judged, inadequate, inferior, guilty, immature, all because of your perceived failure to conform to what someone else regards as ‘holy’?

Jesus wants to set you free from such bondage! As Paul said, ‘you were called to freedom!’”

Are you free in Christ, or are you living in fear as a victim of legalism?

Thanks for the helpful comments last week on A is for Accountability. As a result I stressed how important it is regarding who we choose to be accountable to. This resonated with some as they lamented that what they had shared in confidence was used against them. Regarding accountability I asked three questions during the sermon:

1. Do you have a Nathan? (Who are you accountable to?)
2. Are you a Nathan? (Who are you accountable for?)
3. Do you know your ultimate Nathan, who did not confront you for your sins, but died for your sins?

My short (and incomplete) answers are my wife, my friends and my Jesus.

After the sermon an elder of our church confessed publicly to the entire congregation about an episode from three decades ago where he became a father before he married his present wife. He had not planned to say this, but was prompted to share it as he heard my sermon. He wanted to be accountable to the church for what he had done. It was a tender moment and full of the grace of our Lord.

Two sisters in Christ who previously misunderstood each other both decided to be accountable for each other. They began to share with each other freely what was in their hearts, which they could not do so before. I believe that accountability must be driven by the gospel and the Spirit and not ourselves.

The three parts of my sermon on Beauty (using the word loosely) are:

1. Wired for beauty.
2. Deceived by beauty.
3. Restored through beauty.

God created us to love and to be loved by him. We were created to be fulfilled and attracted to God through all of creation that reflects his goodness and majesty. But we were deceived by counterfeit beauties and brought endless tragedy and woe upon ourselves. Now, only through the ultimate beauty of God expressed through the gospel can we ever be restored, redeemed and reconciled.

My plan is to share how Isaac was deceived by the “beauty” of his older twin son Esau and showed favoritism to him over Jacob, which damaged both sons. Esau became arrogant. Jacob became wounded. In searching for the love of his father that he never experienced, Jacob was deceived by the “beauty” of Rachel and then by her son Joseph, which wounded and nearly destroyed his entire family of 12 sons. Despite such deep seated multi-generational pathology, God extended grace upon grace in order to bring to fruition his plan of redemption, which would ultimately cost him His Son. This is the beauty of redemption that can restore us and compel us to gaze on the beauty of the Lord all the days of our life (Ps 27:4).

I was transformed through the majestic beauty of God who loved me unconditionally and showed me mercy, forgiveness and grace despite myself. I regard it as my mystical conversion.

My hope and prayer is that through my sermon we may be enamored and enraptured by the beauty of God through Christ. Did I succeed?

First, notice that sections of the italicized definition are pasted below and numbered, followed by questions/comments that can help expose the underlined errors therein and (perhaps incompletely) point to some more biblical perspectives.

Second, a much better definition of the church (by no means the only one), is provided. I adapted this definition from a class on Ecclesiology at Reformed Baptist Seminary with Greg Nichols. I loved his class because he drew on no other sources than the scriptures (as will be evident).

Third, I will suggest positive steps for UBF’s future, pointing out that UBF shouldn’t identify itself as a local church (in form) while it almost exclusively operates as a para-church (in function). Based on concepts from 9Marks, I suggest UBF either fully commit to para-church life, or reform into an association of local churches.

UBF is close to my heart, and I love many who still serve therein. So I write this to promote what scripture says about church life. Also, I write this not only to be polemical, but to promote a careful readership that refuses to take simplistic statements at face value, but rather puts everything under scripture’s scrutiny. My purpose is to stir the waters, so that what seemed clear becomes muddy, so that thinking Christians would once again “go back to the Bible.” I hope to encourage even more elaboration.

1. A Bad Definition of Church on UBF’s new Heritage Website

1) UBF definition: “Church is a group of believers.”

This definition seems true on the surface, but hidden beneath is an over-simplification. Believers all throughout church history have wrestled with whether a true local church only needs a group of believers, or whether there needs to be an ordained elder present who can perform Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. So this statement is overly simplistic, overlooking the sincere struggles of those in the historical church who grappled with this question. When I invite Christian friends over for tea and Twinkies, does that form a church? At the simplest level, a church is not only a gathering, but an assembly that performs the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper (John 4:24; 1 Cor. 14:23-25; Heb. 13:15, Acts 2:41, 10:47, 48; 1 Cor. 10:16, 17, 11:25).

2) UBF definition continued: “So it is diverse in that every believer is unique, yet is one in that every believer has many things in common, notably faith (Eph. 4:4,5). The church was formed when Jesus ascended into heaven. About one hundred and twenty people gathered in Jerusalem, stayed in one place, and prayed together waiting for the Holy Spirit Jesus had promised (Acts 1:14). After the Holy Spirit came upon them Peter spoke boldly about Jesus in front of the public. On that day about three thousand were added to the church (Acts 1:41). The church bounded in number (Acts 2:47). As the church expanded, she faced many problems as well. For example, she had to care for widows that had not been the plan of the church. To handle many practical problems in the early church the Apostles appointed seven stewards (Acts 6:5). No Apostles had any blue print on running the church as an organization.”

This statement does not do justice to scripture or to church history. If there was no blueprint on running churches, why do the Pastoral Epistles exist (1-2 Timothy, Titus)? Why does Paul tell Timothy to “Guard what has been entrusted to him” (1 Tim 6:20) and proceed to give him and Titus instructions on church structure, elders and deacons, and procedures to guide church life? What was Timothy to guard? What else did Paul mean by “the tradition they received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6)? The apostles DID HAVE A BLUEPRINT, and they got it from the Lord Jesus Christ, the master architect of his church. From whom do you think Paul learned these traditions pertaining to the church? As professing Christians, we must seek to structure our local churches after that design, found not in our tastes, preferences, or imaginations, but in scripture.

Also, there is a scriptural contradiction by using Acts 6 in the above paragraph. If the apostles had no blueprint, then why were deacons chosen in order for the apostles to better devote their time to prayer and the word? Obviously there were some priorities and pre-defined roles for leadership already at this early stage in church history.

3) UBF definition continued: “The church was the outcome of their devotion to world mission.”

Again, an aspect of truth is here, but it is imbalanced and potentially misleading. Largely, this is a theological and biblical error, for the church was not the outcome of human devotion, but of Christ’s personal building project (Matt 16:18). God chose and gave to Christ the elect, the group believers of all time who would belong to him and believe in him (John 17:6, 24; Eph. 1:4; 1 Pet 1:1-2). Christ himself planned and ordained and built his church, and had in mind certain aspects and features for its well-being, and he still governs and shepherds it today, in particular, tangible ways. So, the church and world mission was the outcome of God keeping his promise to Abraham, that his seed (Israel>David>Christ: the True Israel and True David) would bless the nations—NOT because of the devotion of the apostles to world mission.

4) UBF definition continued: “So the infrastructure of the church was flexible and adaptable as needed.“

Again, see #3 above. What scriptural support is cited for this statement? The church has been very INFLEXIBLE throughout the ages, again, because Christ has been guarding it. Hasn’t the church’s history been replete with heretics being thrown out, of reformations, of wrestling with and clarifying true biblical doctrines? If anything, one of evangelicalism’s biggest scandals is that it HAS BEEN TOO FLEXIBLE AND ADAPTABLE, often not in line with scripture by the leading of the Sovereign Church Director Jesus Christ. Rather, it has been FLEXED by the cultural prejudices, whims, trends, and tastes of the society around it. The apostles and church members are not those who “adapt the church as needed.” The Lord Jesus Christ actively administers and governs all true local churches today, and at any time He sovereignly chooses, He can remove a church’s lampstand (Rev 2-3).

5) UBF definition continued: “As time passed, the church took its own course and made its own shape. For example, it became the imperial state church by AD 400. At her climax around AD 1200 every person born in Europe was born into one church – the Catholic. Then the religious reformation came and the church was diversified into many independent organizations. The UBF has become one of them.”

See #4 above. Also, the church never “takes its own course.” This is a sad characterization of the church that is instituted, built, nurtured, and led by the Lord Jesus (c.f., Matt 16:18).

Furthermore, this statement jumps from the Protestant Reformation (the one that gave us Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Whitefield, Packer, Stott, Edwards, Owens—the rest of the puritans—Keller, Piper, Carson, etc.) to UBF! Shouldn’t we want to listen to how the Holy Spirit throughout the centuries taught and led these reformers to come to fuller, more biblical, and more Christ-centered understandings of the gospel? Wouldn’t it be arrogant to assume that we have the biblically true church design, while never having learned from these Bible teachers?

I think it’s a great disservice to the casual reader (who will not study church history beyond this paragraph) to say the reformation’s only effect on the world was to make “many independent organizations” (!). Calvin would cry at this. Luther would shout! The reformation GAVE US BACK THE GOSPEL that had been lost (sorry for the oversimplification).

One last thing: this bad definition of church neglects a discussion of CHURCH MEMBERSHIP, which, at the time of writing this article, UBF currently does not have. The word “member” is on the page 3 times, but UBF provides no guidelines/requirements for membership. This is very dangerous, since lack of membership creates difficulty for loving church discipline to be intentionally and consistently carried out, and it creates opportunities for those who hold heretical viewpoints to rise in popularity and influence within UBF chapters. Also, because

1. Scripture explicitly affirms church membership (Eph 4:25, 5:29-30)

2. Pastoral care mandates church membership (Acts 20:28-32)

3. Church discipline mandates church membership (Matt 18:15-18)

4. Joining the church mandates church membership (Acts 9:25-30)

Look up the references and study for yourself.

2. A Better Definition of “Church”—in one very long sentence (with scripture references)

What follows is a better definition of the church, adapted from an excellent class I took on Ecclesiology with Greg Nichols. It’s one LONG sentence. Be sure to study the scripture references.

The Church is Christ’s saved society…

… PURPOSED in God’s eternal plan and solemn pledge of salvation (Eph. 3:10; 2 Thess. 1:1, 4-5; Gen. 3:15);

which was PORTRAYED in supernatural creation; in covenant promises of salvation, and in John’s gospel commencement (Rom. 5:14, Isa. 54:9-10; Heb. 12:22, John 4:1-2);

which was FORMED through salvation accomplished and applied by Christ (Matt. 16:18, Acts 20:28),

in its Identity: God’s new creation (Christ’s body, bride, and posterity), the covenant community (his children, people, kingdom, temple, and priesthood), and Christ’s gospel assembly of glorified spirits in heaven and of his disciples on earth (Rom. 5:14-19, Isa. 54:9, Isa. 53:9; Heb. 2:13-14, Rom. 9:6, 24-26; Matt. 21:43; Col. 1:13; Eph. 5:24-33 Acts 11:26, 19:32-41);

in its Extraordinary form: structured collectively as one universal assembly consisting of many local assemblies and disciples (Gal. 1:13, 22)

and distinguished by seven prominent features;

instituted personally by Christ (Matt. 16:18);

composed evangelically of believers in Christ (Acts 2:47, 5:14, 14:21-23);

administered universally by Christ, his Spirit, and apostles, locally by elders and deacons (Eph. 5:23; Col. 1:18, Acts 13:2, Acts 16:4; 1 Cor. 7:17, Acts 14:23, 20:17, 28; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:8-13);

constituted solemnly by divine covenant with Christ’s blood symbolized in the Lord ’s Supper (1 Cor. 10:16, 17, 11:25; Heb. 8:6-13);

consecrated by endowment with God’s Spirit;

convoked weekly on the Lord’s Day (Acts 1:5; 1 Cor. 3:16, Exod. 20:8; Acts 20:7);

and commissioned to display God’s glory in Christian salvation and integration (Acts 11:26; Eph. 3:5-10);

in its Sacred vocation (upward, inward, outward), appointed and endowed by Christ

to draw near to God in worship, ordinances (Baptism and the Lord’s Supper), and prayer (John 4:24; 1 Cor. 14:23-25; Heb. 13:15, Acts 2:41, 10:47, 48; 1 Cor. 10:16,17, 11:25, 1 Tim. 2:1-8);

to love God’s people by nurture, benevolence, and discipline (John 13:34-35, 1 Tim. 5:16, Matt. 18:17; 1 Cor. 5:1-13);

and to love humanity by gospel evangelism (Matt. 28:18-20);

and in its Institutional relations  within the Nohaic covenant community, a compliment to family and state (Matt. 19:3-12; Eph. 5:22-24, Rom. 13:1-7);

which is PRESERVED throughout its militant history through the gospel application of salvation in every generation in spiritual warfare with the world, sin, devil, death, and hell, through great apostasy, and with a gospel recovery (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 3:21, 6:10-18, 2 Thess. 2:3-12; 1 Tim. 4:1-2, Acts 3:19-21; Rom. 11:17-32);

and which WILL BE GLORIFIED at its triumphant destiny in the completion of salvation with ultimate victory (1 Cor. 15:25-26), with translation unto glory, and with eternal life (Eph. 5:27; 1 Thess. 4:13-17).

Here’s a quick summary of the definition: The church is Christ’s saved society: purposed in God’s eternal plan and solemn pledge of salvation, portrayed in covenant promises of salvation, formed in Christ’s accomplishment of salvation, preserved through the gospel application of salvation, and glorified in the completion of salvation.

I hope that readers of this will at least go through the scripture references. If not even that, please take away from this that the first paragraph on the web page cited contains a biblically and church-historically inaccurate definition of the church. Then, the web site attempts to proceed in argument from this definition to justify the structure of UBF. However, careful readers should expose and question the errors of this definition, so that what proceeds from it may also be found biblically baseless. And it’s okay to publish an article on your organization’s structure. But it’s not okay to make it seem like your organization’s structure is supported by biblical teaching, especially when the way you use the bible verses and narrate church history is imbalanced and misleading.

3. My Hope for UBF’s Future

My wife and I lived with, cried with, grew with, and were nurtured by people in UBF for over 9.5 years! We love them, so everything written here should be understood from that viewpoint. So, in recognition of the scriptural definition of the church above, it is my sincere hope and prayer (I actually have been praying this for 3 years) that UBF refrain from identifying itself as a local church (in its outward form) while it continues being essentially a para-church organization (in its day-to-day function). (See 9Marks Journal, April 2011 issue for a distinction on church vs. para-church organizations.)

In particular, UBF should either:

1. Commit to being only a para-church organization. UBF should shift its major focus to protecting, supporting, promoting and nurturing nearby local churches, sending those it evangelizes on campuses eventually to nearby local churches; by sending out trained, seasoned shepherds/house churches to serve nearby local churches; and by requiring all UBF participants to have membership, or at least associate membership, in a local church; OR UBF should

2. Commit to being an association of autonomous local churches. UBF should “reform” into an association of autonomous local churches (UBF chapters–> local churches), each of which develops:

1) local church polity for members, deacons, and pastors/elders (a church constitution), ordination and preaching-license requirements;

2) membership requirements, and especially a church discipline covenant; and

3) a doctrinal confession that not only includes traditional evangelical beliefs  but articulates clearly and adduces scriptural support for all of UBF’s uniquely-nuanced-yet-unwritten practices. Provide written/published explanations of expectations for members, and scriptural support for terms/concepts like marriage by faith, fishing, one-to-one bible study, common life, the polarization of grace and truth, the use of the term “sheep” to refer indistinguishably to believers and unbelievers, etc.—so that expectations and concepts are explicitly and verbally articulated rather than only implicitly and nonverbally infused in the behavior/culture of UBF.

These are just (imperfect) suggestions that I’ve been thinking/praying to God about. I defer to God to do exceedingly and abundantly more than I can ask or imagine. But whatever changes take place, I pray that those who do them are motivated by the fact that the Church is wholly the possession and the executive responsibility of Jesus Christ, and His church exists to display his glory in its upward, inward, and outward vocation. Then UBF, committing either to Christ-centered para-church or to local church life, would have, I believe, a much greater impact in its intended mission.

Remember, when you write a definition of “church,” you are writing about Christ’s bride, whom He looks after, and is jealous for. I’d be careful how I write about someone’s bride. So, just stick to the New Testament’s teaching on it, which came from Christ himself (Jn 16:13; 14:26; 15:26, 27).

This past weekend

The resurrection is life transforming. In keeping with my earlier requests for critique of my sermons, I welcome critique of my sermon on Luke 24 which I preached on Sat, Apr 19: The Resurrection Changes Everything. I wanted to explain four ways the resurrection changes everything: (1) Life transforming; (2) Scripture clarifying; (3) Paradigm shattering; and (4) King establishing. But I got carried away with the first point and concluded my sermon by stressing that the resurrection is not a consolation for our loss (especially of our dearly beloved ones), but a complete restoration of our loss. (I did not touch on the final three points, which you can read here.)

A non-PDA person. In the first few minutes I expressed my appreciation of those who raise their hands in worship in heart felt awe during the singing. But I explained that I keep my hands in my pocket because I am a “non-PDA sort of person.” I wanted to assure everyone that my heart goes out in worship to my God every bit as much as them with their hands in the air…even though my hands are in my pocket!

Change the world. I began my sermon by explaining my favorite 20 second trailer of the movie Son of God where Jesus calls Peter to his disciple. When Jesus got Peter’s attention by granting him a miraculous catch of fish, Peter looked startled and asked, “How did this happen?” Jesus leaned forward and said, “Come with me.” Peter asked, “What are we going to do?” Jesus said, “Change the world.”

My title–The Resurrection Changes Everything–sounds grandiose. Let me know if my preaching and extemporaneous delivery lived up to the title. Feel free to also share what the resurrection means to you.

Grace alone. Alternate perspectives and counter comments have previously been bantered about, but I thought it good to articulate in one article the (Reformed) perspective that best expresses my understanding and my faith. The key is that only the grace of God (never man’s merit) leads to redemption and blessing, both in the OT and NT.

What Moses and Paul says. Moses declares what is called the Deuteronomic principle (Dt 4:1, 40), which says that obedience to the Lord’s commands (Law/Torah) brings life and blessing, while disobedience brings curse and destruction. On the other hand, Paul states that the law brings curse and death (since no one is able to keep the law), in contrast to the life that comes by the Spirit (Rom 2:12-13; 4:15; 7:8-9; 8:2-4; 10:4-5; 2 Cor 3:6; Gal 3:12-13, 21-24; 5:18). Does Paul (NT) contradict Moses (OT)?

Grace before obedience. Moses did not view obedience to the law as the basis of covenantal relationship. The Israelites were God’s people entirely because of God’s grace and initiative in saving them from bondage (Ex 19:4; 20:2; Dt 5:6, 15; 6:21-23; 15:15; 24:18), independent of any merit on their part (Dt 9:5-6). God chose Israel as his people before revealing to them his law.

Obedience is the evidence of faith. To Moses a relationship with God happens with obedience to God’s commands. When acts of obedience arise out of genuine faith, God accepts them as proof of righteousness and responds with blessing and life. Jesus says likewise (Jn 14:15, 21, 23). Conversely, with disobedience, faith may be lacking, to which God responds with curse and death. We reap what we sow (Gal 6:7). Flesh begets flesh and the Spirit begets the spirit (Jn 3:6; Rom 8:5).

No acts of human righteousness ever merits God’s salvation. OT and NT consistently assert that no one may perform works of righteousness sufficient to merit the saving favor of God (Ps 14:1, 4; 51:4-5; 53:1, 3; Isa 64:6; Rom 3:23), which is entirely God’s grace and initiative.

Why was the Law given? God reveals his standard of righteousness by which his people, already saved by grace, may live and confidently depend on God for their approval. Thus, the Law is a gift of grace (Jn 1:16-17) through which God provided his people with an ever-present reminder of his deliverance, his power, his presence, his covenant faithfulness and the way of life and prosperity.

To reconcile Paul and Moses, later revelation cannot correct earlier revelation, as if there were some defect in it. Later revelation may be more precise, more nuanced, “more clear,” but it cannot be more true. Paul cannot be interpreted as correcting Moses, as if Moses’ teaching were erroneous. If Moses attributed a life-giving/sustaining function to the law (Lev 18:5), and Paul appears to have declared the opposite as a dogmatic assertion, then Paul would have failed the traditional and primary test of a true prophet–agreement with Moses (cf. Dt 18:15-22). Paul’s statements must be interpreted not only in light of Moses, but also as rhetorical assertions made in the context of particular arguments.

In Romans and Galatians, Paul responds to those who insist that salvation comes by the works of the law, as represented by circumcision. Paul’s reply to them is that if one looks to the law as a way of salvation, it leads to death, but if one looks to the law as a guide for those already saved, it yields life (Gal 5:13-25). In Rom 2:13 Paul sounds like Moses, “For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.” “The obedience of faith” (Rom 1:5)–a faith demonstrated through acts of obedience–is common to both the OT and NT. James says likewise in Jas 2:17, 24, 26.

This paradigm applies in both the OT and NT, and in both Moses and Paul:

1. God’s gracious (unmerited) saving actions yield the fruit of a redeemed people.
2. A redeemed people produces the fruit of righteous deeds.
3. Righteous deeds yield the fruit of divine approval and blessing.

Law lacking grace; grace lacking law. Some churches are driven by the law while claiming the grace of God. This results in legalism, phariseeism and burn out. Others emphasize grace while eschewing the law. This results in antinomianism, a moral looseness and a lack of holiness. A sad result is when “both sides” accuse the “other side” of being the problem.

Please write a post regarding law and grace. I love both doctrines. My desire is to emphasize grace (by the Spirit) without diminishing or imposing the law, both of which obscures grace.

(Reference: Block, Daniel I. Deuteronomy: The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 2012. 197-199.)

(a sermon based loosely on Romans 1:18-32, delivered at Hyde Park on 9/22/13)

The topic for today is wrath. More specifically, the role of God’s punishment in understanding the gospel. This is a topical message, and I hope that you will bear with my ramblings, listen critically, and judge for yourselves whether or not I am being faithful to the witness of Scripture.

The gospel is summarized by John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (Jn 3:16) The gospel is good news of love and life. But there’s a flipside to that in certain gospel presentations, that if you reject the good news, there will be “hell to pay.” Sometimes that flipside becomes the main story. As in that famous sermon by Jonathan Edwards, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” which depicts the non-believer dangling over a pit of hellfire, held up by only a spider’s web which can break at God’s whim. The message is that, unless and until we believe in Jesus, we are the objects of God’s wrath. ”For God was so ticked off at the world that he gave his one and only Son…” Now some people will say that the Church has gotten too soft, that we have become morally lax and ineffective in our witness because we’ve stopped confronting people with their sin and no longer warn them about God’s wrath. And others will say that we should stop up talking about wrath altogether, because it gives an ineffective and misleading picture of what the gospel is about.

Being raised as I was in the Roman Catholic Church, wrath and divine punishment were very much a part of my childhood education. I was taught that if I committed a mortal sin (such as missing Mass on Sunday) and then died before going to confession, my soul would go straight to hell. In the evangelical world, I heard that God is love, but he is also wrathful; he wants to forgive us of our sins, but he also has to punish every sin, so he decided to punish Jesus instead of us, which satisfied both his love and his wrath. Love and wrath were the opposing sides, the opposite poles of God’s character, as were grace and truth, and those opposing sides were brought together at the cross. Bingo! Problem solved.

That explanation sounded logical, and it was good enough to keep me from worrying about it for a long time. But after two decades of assuming that I had this gospel thing all figured out, I began to have doubts, and I started to notice some deeper contradictions. As I became more honest with myself, a terrible truth started to dawn on me. The truth was: I didn’t love God very much. All along, Christians had been telling me that the gospel brings people to “a personal relationship with God” and “a love relationship with God.” But I began to admit that I didn’t really have that. Don’t get me wrong; I was deeply involved in church activities, I was doing lots of things for God. I was carrying out my Christian duties. But I wasn’t in love with God in the sense that I wasn’t liking him. I wasn’t longing to be with him, to see him, to worship him, to know him. For the longest time, I had just assumed that the problem was me. I supposed that I had failed to grasp the deep truth of the message that was given, that I just hadn’t believed it enough, that I hadn’t tried hard enough, and so on. I put all the blame on myself, thinking that I, as an individual, was deficient. But as the years wore on, I began to notice that lots of other Christians – evangelical Christians, the ones who supposedly “knew the Bible” and had gotten the gospel “right” – were in essentially the same boat as I was. For all our talk about having a personal relationship with God, our experience of God was impersonal, driven by rules and principles and teachings; our worship was intellectual, abstract and sterile; all of that wonder and joy and heavenly sunshine that we promised people they would experience if they “just accepted Jesus as their personal savior” wasn’t fully there; it wasn’t being realized in our lives and in our community.

So I went back to fundamentals. I asked myself some basic questions like, “What is love?” and “Is it possible to love someone if you don’t actually like them?” I decided that the answer to that second question is “No.” If you claim to love someone but you don’t actually like them, then something is fundamentally broken; that love is retarded, it is stunted, and it can’t be fixed by reinforcing the status quo and doing more of the same. And I came to realize a truth I had never known before. That truth is that love requires freedom. If an expression of love isn’t given freely simply because the giver wants to give it, then it’s not love. Many of the gospel presentations that I’ve heard have more than a hint of coercion. “God loves you, and he has a wonderful plan for your life. And oh, by the way, if you don’t accept his offer, you’re gonna burn in hell for all eternity, so you might as well say, ‘Yes.’” Picture a man proposing to his girlfriend. He gets down on one knee, takes out a diamond ring, and says, “I love you more than anything in this world; I want to spend the rest of my life with you. Will you marry me? And oh, by the way, if you say no, I’ll find ways to punish you and ruin your life.” Would that marriage be off to a great start? If the purpose of the gospel is to bring us into a loving relationship with Jesus the bridegroom, then how could such a relationship be established by threats or by force?

The understanding that love requires freedom has enormous implications for how we live out our faith. One of my spiritual breakthroughs, a real “Aha!” moment, came when I read the classic book True Spirituality by Francis Schaeffer. Early on in that book, he makes a point that is profoundly profound. He say that if you are a Christian, it is not good enough for you to simply do the right thing; you have to do the right thing in the right way and for the right reason. What he means is this. It is possible for any of us to generate good behaviors by our own human strength and willpower. But that isn’t how God’s kingdom operates. To a pragmatist, motives don’t matter. A pragmatist would say, “What does it matter why you do something? As long  as somebody is doing something good, there’s no need to worry about why.” (Some will even support this with Scripture, as Paul wrote in Philippians 1:18: “But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached.”)  But in Christianity, the why really does matter. In God’s kingdom, the good works that we do are of no value unless they are being brought forth through the living person of Jesus Christ who has made his home in us – or, in other words, by the active work of the Holy Spirit who is alive in us. The outward fruit that Christians bear must be the visible manifestation of the inner fruit that comes from the Holy Spirit, and according to Paul in Galatians 5:22, the most basic fruit of the Holy Spirit is love.

What I’m saying is this. Whatever we do as Christian life, the motive for doing it must be love. Not a sense of honor or duty. Not a sense of fear. Not peer pressure or groupthink or pleasing mommy or daddy. Not to make myself look like a leader and gain acceptance by people because I do what’s expected and follow the rules. My motive must be pure affection for God and pure affection for others, the pure affection of Jesus that flows like a river from the throne of God into our hearts by the power of the Holy Spirit. That kind of pure love is not generated by our efforts; it is simply a gift. If the reason why we do what we do is not love, then what we are doing is not gospel work. This isn’t rocket science. This is Christianity 101. This is the language of the new covenant (Jer 31:31-34). This is part of what Jesus meant when he said that all the law and prophets, in other words, the whole teaching of Scripture, hinges upon love for God and love for our neighbor (Mt 22:40). The authentic Christian life is motivated by love, powered by love, experienced in love, consummated in love. Love reigns supreme.

I used to think that love was one of the many excellent qualities of God. In western Christianity, there’s a tradition of defining God by listing his attributes. God is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-sufficient, all-holy, and so on. Who is God? “Well, God is a being with all those attributes. If your walking down the street, and by chance you encounter a being with all those attributes, you have found God!” That understanding of God can be helpful up to a point. But it is impersonal and it falls short when we come to love. The Bible doesn’t merely say that God has love. Scripture says that God is love (1Jn 4:8). Love is not an abstract quality or attribute that a single person can have in isolation from other persons. Love manifests itself in relationships. Love is an other-centeredness that is realized only when others are present.  Unless multiple persons are involved, there is no love.

This is why it’s so important to understand that God is not a single person but a Trinity – three persons, distinct but co-equal, each one fully free and fully God, but living together in unity and dwelling in one another and delighting in one another. When some people imagine God, they picture him as one white haired guy sitting on a throne completely in love with himself and demanding that everyone love him too. But the God of the historic Christian faith is a Triune community of love. So when the Apostle John said, “God is love,” he really meant it.  God’s missional purpose, his plan for us and for the world, flows from who he is. His intention is to draw us into his loving community, to delight in Father Son and Spirit and be delighted in by them as they delight in one another, participating with them to the extent that we can as earthly human beings on in that amazing dance that has been going on in the heavenly realms since before time began. That was the reason why we were created. That is the reason why the kosmos  was created. That is the reason why God incarnated himself to become part of the kosmos to redeem us and all the kosmos. “For God so loved the kosmos that he sent his one and only Son…” (Jn 3:16)

If we want to explain the gospel well, we need to start in the right place. Some gospel tellings start with Romans 3:23, “…for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…” Sin is a huge part of the story. But we won’t be able to understand sin unless we go father back to see what God was in the process of making before sin broke it. It’s hard to come up with a definition of sin that internally resonates with everyone because, although everyone has some sense of good versus bad, the way people understand good versus bad varies greatly from one culture to another. Western understandings focus on guilt: people sense they are bad when they as individuals break a rule or violate an objective moral standard. But Eastern understandings focus on shame: people sense they are bad when they fail to live up to the expectations of their group and bring dishonor to the family or community. In a guilt society, order is maintained by explicit rules and punishments for breaking the rules. In a shame society, order is maintained by marginalizing and ostracizing people who step out of line. These differences make it very hard for Easterners and Westerners to agree on how to deal with unethical behavior, or even on what constitutes unethical behavior.

The manner in which we understand sin will deeply affect our understanding of biblical terms like justification. Evangelical Protestants tend to explain the gospel in legal or forensic terms. We imagine a courtroom where God the Father is the judge, and we are on trial for everything we have ever done. The evidence is presented, and we are found guilty and sentenced to hell. But just before we are handed over for eternal punishment, Jesus bursts in and says, “I died for his sins! The price is paid!” and we are set free. In this framework, justification means that God declares us as individuals to be innocent of the crimes we have committed. Children of the Reformation tend to think in terms of law, because the Reformation was carried out by lawyers. Zinzendorf, Melanchthon, and Calvin all studied law. They inherited the Western tradition of Lex, Rex (“Law is King”) which supposes that people of all standing, even rulers and kings, must submit themselves to legal principles and be punished in a fair and impartial manner if they disobey.  Now if you take this western legal understanding of the gospel and bring it to eastern cultures which operate on a system of shame and honor, a great deal will be lost in translation. This is one of the issues that the UBF ministry has been wrestling with, and we need to better understand what is happening here if we are going to develop a workable ecclesiology, a system of church governance that sets the ground rules by which we operate. But I digress.

Kingdoms of the west maintain the social order by rules, guilt and punishment. Kingdoms of the east have developed elaborate systems of honor and shame. So what about God’s kingdom? How does it operate? If the kingdom of God is the realm of the Father, Son and Spirit, it must function as the persons of the Trinity relate to one another. Is the Father ever ticked off at the Son? Does the Father say to the Son, “Don’t ask questions, boy, just obey”? Do the Father and Son draw up rules for the Spirit and say , “Holy, we want you to go into the world and do this, because this is safe, but don’t ever work that way, because that way is too unpredictable”? In the first three centuries after Christ, the Church Fathers had passionate, heated debates about this, sometimes resulting in fistfights, because they sensed they needed to get it right. They were not arguing over esoteric abstractions. They were grappling with the most basic question, “How does the kingdom operate?” They looked carefully at the apostolic tradition, including the writings of Paul and the Upper Room discourse of John 13-17. They struggled to find just the right words to describe who the Father, Son and Spirit are and how they relate to one another. What they said, in essence, is that the persons of the Trinity never bind one another, never lord it over one another, never impose rules or obligations or guilt trips or manipulations of any kind. Their relationship is one of complete equality, complete freedom, complete openness and honesty, complete unity in the midst of creative diversity, to the point where they are not simply admiring one another from a distance but actually getting inside of one another and indwelling one another in an atmosphere that can only be described as pure joy.

The persons of the Trinity are doing the “happy dance.” As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be. Their delight in one another is so infectious that it bursts out of them in creative energy that produces new life. Think of what happens when a husband and wife who delight in one another and come together in freedom and just do what comes naturally; their passion leads to babies. Babies are amazing.  From the moment they come out of the womb, they are an explosion of joy and wonder. The are little autonomous beings who want nothing more than to just be with people and thrive on the receiving and giving of love.  We are the children of God, the babies of the Trinity. God’s whole purpose for us is to draw us into his everlasting happy dance and experience a baby’s pure love and joy and wonder.  The dance that God intends for us is not on some pie-in-the-sky heavenly cloud, but right here in this world, in this physical, natural environment that he created us for and that he created for us. Jesus taught us to pray, “Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.”

In light of this understanding of how the kingdom operates, we start to realize that the views of guilt and shame that dominate the cultures of west and east fail to describe the full scope and tragedy of what sin has done. Sin is something like a cancer which has metastasized, twisting and distorting and injecting hurt and pain into every aspect of that happy dance for which the children of God were created – our relationship with Father, Son and Spirit; our relationships with one another; our relationships to ourselves; and our relationships to this created world. In our fallen state, we come together and try to perform damage control in these various areas using the tools of social engineering that our parents handed down to us. Some of our solutions are quite creative and work better than others. But in the end, none of our treatments can cure us or truly heal our relationships. And may I suggest that many of our deficient understandings and outright misunderstandings of the gospel stem from taking our personal and cultural ideals of what a good, orderly human society or church ought to look like – all of our creative strategies for sin management — and forcibly projecting those views onto God’s kingdom, rather than stepping back and asking God with open hearts and minds, “Lord, how does your kingdom operate? Reveal yourself. Show me how you work.”

When we ask that question and go back to Scripture, we gain insight upon insight. There are so many ways to describe about how God brings his kingdom to us and us to his kingdom.  Those insights from the Bible tend to come not so much in the form of doctrinal statements that we are told to just accept, but as colorful stories, narratives and parables that we hear and chew on and discuss with one another until they take root in us. The key figure present in all those Scriptural stories and parables is a single character, a man named Jesus, who has been revealed as the Messiah by virtue of his suffering, death and resurrection. When we approach Scripture as Jesus and the apostles taught us – a method that can be described as “forward and backward” – when we read it prospectively in its original historical context, and then re-read it retrospectively in light of the historical experience of Jesus’ death and resurrection and ascension – then we gain glimpses of how that kingdom is already breaking into this world and into our experience if we have eyes to see and ears to hear.

God’s kingdom is already fully realized and fully present in the person of Jesus. Jesus is fully divine and fully human. He is all God, all man, all the time, and two natures in one person, and the divine and human are always in harmony, never in conflict. Where Jesus is, there is the kingdom of God, insofar as human beings can experience it. Since Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, he is no longer here in bodily form. He has promised to return to us in the flesh, and when he does we will be together with him and experience the full reality of the kingdom in our spirits and our bodies. Until then, while we wait, we have his presence among us in the body of the Church through the activity of the Holy Spirit, whom Paul described as a seal, a downpayment , an arrabon (engagement ring), a foretaste and sure promise of the kingdom life that is to come (Eph 1:13-14).

Now when the Holy Spirit comes to us, his intention is not to throw us into a fog of guilt and shame. Nor does he want to terrorize us with fear. Nor does he come to us chains of slavery, with long lists of rules and conditions that we need to fulfill before we measure up to God’s standard. Scripture is very, very clear on that point. The Holy Spirit is the spirit of Christ, the Spirit of Sonship, the polar opposite of fear, the one who unites us to Jesus and enables us to cry out, “Abba, Father” (Ro 8:15, Gal 4:6).

To conclude this sermon, I want to return to the subject of God’s wrath. That word, which basically means anger, appears in the Old Testament (NIV) 152 times, and in the New Testament 29 times. I believe Scripture is divinely inspired, and I believe that word is an accurate reflection of how human beings in our fallen state experience God as he works to reveal himself to us in our context. I find it extremely fascinating how often the psalmists use wrath in ways that, in light of the teachings of Jesus (for example, in the Sermon on the Mount) are distinctively unchristian. For example, in Psalm 79:6: “Pour out your wrath on the nations that do not acknowledge you, on the kingdoms that do not call on your name.” And Psalm 69:24: “Pour out your wrath on them; let your fierce anger overtake them.” And Psalm 6:1: “Lord, do not rebuke me in your anger or discipline me in your wrath.” The psalmists appear to be totally in favor of God pouring out his wrath, as long as God does it on other people and not them. This is often how we feel, and it is an accurate reflection of how fallen human beings sometimes pray. But this is not the teaching of Jesus; he commanded us to love our enemies. I have found a similar spirit at work in certain kinds of gospel preaching: the idea that God’s wrath is being poured out on other people, on people outside of the fold, on people who are not seen as God’s people by virtue of their beliefs and behaviors.

But when we turn to the New Testament, we see a distinct shift in the frequency and manner that wrath appears. In the NIV gospels, Jesus used the word only twice: Once in Luke 21:23 when he predicted the destruction of Jerusalem, and again in John 3:36, when he’s speaking to Nicodemus: “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.”  Colorful and intense preaching about God’s anger, the kind that appears in Jonathan Edwards’ famous sermon, is very rare in Jesus’ proclamation of the gospel. In Jesus’ parables, he does occasionally speak of God’s judgment, but it tends to be against God’s people who refuse to forgive and reconcile with one another (Mt 18:34), those who claim to be Jesus’ followers but refuse to show love and mercy to people in need (Mt 25:46), and against hypocritical religious leaders who misuse their positions if authority and abuse people under their care (Mt 24:51). I have not yet found anyplace in Scripture where Jesus applies wrath and anger against nonbelievers, pagans, Samaritans, Gentiles, tax collectors, public sinners, or anyone who lies outside the boundary of those who were considered God’s people at that time.

The most systematic development of God’s wrath that I see in the New Testament appears in Romans 1:18-32, where Paul declares, “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness…” I won’t take the time to go over the details of that passage, but I will comment on the big picture. Paul says that God’s wrath “is being revealed.” He uses the present perfect tense to indicate that it is going on now. How is God now revealing his wrath? Is he bombarding us with pestilence, famine, earthquakes and tsunamis? As the passage progresses, Paul explains how God is pouring out his wrath. Three times – in verses 24, 26, and 28 – Paul says that God “gave them over.” In response to human wrongdoing, God gave them over to sexual impurity, to shameful lusts, to a depraved mind. The response is not an active, willful punishment by God, but a removal of his protection that allows people to go out from his presence to experience the consequences of sin on their bodies, their minds, their families, their society. If God’s loving design is to draw fallen human beings into joyful relationship with him, with one another, with themselves, and with the created world – and if love requires actual freedom — then it makes sense that God’s wrath would be to give wayward people what they are asking for, to remove his hand of protection, and allow the forces of sin to metastasize in them and in the world, leading to horrendous and deadly consequences.

I believe this picture of God’s wrath, a wrath that is more like the passive flipside of love than the active retribution, is fairly consistent with how God dealt with sin throughout the Bible. [Note to self: I don’t think it explains everything in the Old Testament; there are still difficult problems in the OT that none of us seem to understand very well.] I can see this picture in the Levitical system of animal sacrifice. Animals offered for human sin as a picture of atonement, but the animals were simply killed; they weren’t tortured to death. Above all, our understanding of God’s love and wrath must be shaped by what happened at the crucifixion. At the cross, God allowed Jesus to experience the full cup of suffering, to taste God’s wrath and experience human death. At the cross, I do not see the Father actively meting out punishments against the Son. I do see a Father who has apparently forsaken the Son, removed his hand of protection from him, and allowed the forces of darkness to take their course, as sinful human beings do unspeakably cruel things to Jesus.

In conclusion, I do believe that a violent form of wrath that we perceive as punishment is sometimes part of our human experience. It is how fallen people often deal with one another. It is how we may perceive (or misunderstand) God’s working as he breaks in to our lives. I do believe that God gets angry, but his anger flows when things and people he loves dearly are being devalued and destroyed. God is love. He is not equal parts love and wrath. His wrath flows from his love.

Our tendency to think of God as equal parts love and wrath may also stem from our tendency to “flatten” the Bible, to read the Bible as though every part of Scripture is equally important, that every verse no matter where it is reveals God’s character to the same degree and with the same clarity. We tend to suppose that every psalm, every chapter in Leviticus and Numbers and Judges and Jeremiah, carries the same kind of surface-level revelation of God’s character as, say, Jesus’ teaching in the Upper Room.  The Old Testament passages about holy war and genocide are read the same way and given the same weight as Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount. But that is not the way that most Christians have always approached the Bible. Many Christians throughout history have understood the Bible as God’s progressive revelation of himself. As the story progresses, the portrait of God being painted through his written word becomes clearer and clearer, and culminates when he himself shows up as Jesus, the living Word.

And [I owe this insight to pastor Greg Boyd] we need to remember that the Bible is a story with a surprise ending. In a typical movie, the story marches along, and the plot takes various twists and turns. But some movies hit the audience with a big surprise at the end. A good example of this kind of movie is The Book of Eli. As you watch that movie, the plot unfolds, and there’s plenty of excitement and action. But in the final moments of the story, the last sixty seconds, something is revealed that is totally unexpected, and that revelation causes you to go back and reframe and reinterpret everything that came before.

The Bible is that kind of story. The Bible shows in human language how God works through the nation of Israel to reveal his salvation plan. But when the Messiah shows up, some things happen that are totally unexpected. First, he looks like a very ordinary man. Then he is rejected, he suffers and is put to death on a cross. Then he rises again; his body comes to life and bursts out of the tomb. He appears to his disciples and then ascends bodily into heaven. Then he sends the Holy Spirit upon the Church and the good news is spread to the Gentiles. All those happenings were totally unexpected, and what you then see in the epistles is the early church trying to make sense of what just happened; and  the authors of the New Testament go back and reframe the entire Old Testament in light of the historical realities of Jesus’ death, resurrection, ascension and Pentecost. If we stop flattening the Bible; if we stop treating all passages in the same way regardless of their historical setting and genre; if we realize that God’s ultimate revelation of himself is not in the written word of a document but in the living Word who is a person; and if we believe that the kind of love that characterizes God is defined by the cross; then God’s wrath and love start to come into proper focus.

In closing, I believe, as the Scripture testifies, that the death of Jesus is a substitution; he died for us (Ro 3:25-26). But that isn’t the whole picture. Scripture also testifies that it is a union; at the cross, he died with us, and we died with him; on Easter he rose with us, and we rose with him (Ro 6:1-14). The Christian rite of baptism, the initiation into the family of God, has always been seen as a baptism into his death and resurrection, an initiation into a relationship where we die with him and rise with him. The atonement is“for” us but it is also “with” us. So that we may be “in” Christ and Christ may be “in” us. So that we may join with one another in that everlasting union, that eternal happy dance, with the Father, Son and Spirit. Glory be to God.

There is a book making rounds among many churches by John Bevere called “Under Cover: The Promise of Protection Under His Authority.” It’s been some time since I left UBF, but I certainly do have heart for the many individuals that remain in this ministry, not to mention the many new believers whose first Bible study takes place in UBF. In this series I am simply going to present several short articles going through Allan Clare’s review of the “Shepherding Movement” from the 1970’s and its connection with John Bevere’s 2001 book “Under Cover.”

I hope this will help those who see this series understand some of the structural flaws that lead to spiritual abuse, and other issues in UBF.

In this first installment I will just highlight main points from Allan Clare’s review of the book, in particular the first two chapters. The full review John Bevere called “Under Cover: The Promise of Protection Under His Authority.” is relatively short:  Allan Clare Review (pdf)

I. A Little History: The Shepherding Movement

Anyone who has been in UBF for any time at all should feel there ears tingle when they hear something like “The Shepherding Movement.” It is a movement very similar to what is found in UBF. So similar that I’m amazed I haven’t seen UBF mentioned as a group that continues its practices. Hopefully we can learn from their mistakes. Here is some of the history that Clare provides:

The Shepherding Movement emerged as a nondenominational movement in 1974. Four Charismatic Bible teachers formed the movement, which spread and was taught by thousands all over the country.

The teachings of the Shepherding Movement emphasized: authority, submission, discipleship, commitment to covenant relationships, loyalty, pastoral care, and spiritual covering. One David Moore puts it, “…the need for discipleship through personal care or, as they termed it, ‘shepherding’ care… a believer was to submit to a ‘personal pastor’ [i.e. a shepherd] who would help the individual develop Christian maturity.”

The rise of the Shepherding Movement alarmed many, particularly because it produced stories of abusive authority, hyper-submission, and controlled lives.

The founders realized that their teaching produced problems and cases of spiritual abuse, and they openly repented and asked forgiveness from those harmed. Bob Mumford, one of the founders publically repented saying, “some families were split up and lives turned upside down. Some of these families are still not back together.” They admitted that the movement causes, “an unhealthy submission resulting in perverse and unbiblical obedience to human leaders.”

Moore again says the Shepherding Movement, “…created a propensity toward an abuse of spiritual authority, especially among young immature leaders, or leaders who lacked character and integrity… the emphasis on hierarchically oriented submission to God’s delegated authorities led to many cases of improper control and abusive authority throughout the movement.”

II. From Shepherding to “Under Cover”

[Still from Clare’s review]

Bob Mumford, one of the four Shepherding Movement founders, distributed his teachings through issues of New Wine magazine, which focused on the need for practical obedience to God and submission to his delegated authority in all spheres of life.

Despite the near history of the Shepherding Movement and all the issues it caused, in 2001 Thomas Nelson published John Bevere’s “Under Cover” a book which promotes Bevere’s own teaching on authority, submission, discipleship, commitment in covenant relationships, loyalty, pastoral care, and spiritual covering.

The book has spread through Charismatic churches and other church accustomed to top-down, hierarchical models of church leadership [i.e. UBF].

Mary Alice Chrnalogar writes: “…since many leaders in the Shepherding Movement admitted doing wrong, various people who continue to use the same methods have begun to give different labels for the same actions… The errors are covered in many different terms like delegated authority, covering, unquestioned submission, covenant, commitment to a fellowship, etc. Terms change from time to time. Submission may be called ‘commitment,’ ‘covenant relationship’ or ‘divine order’ [or ‘spiritual order’] in church government. Many times terms aren’t used at all; it is the actions that tell you what is going on.”

Although Bevere doesn’t use the term “Shepherding” in the book “Under Cover,” the main focus is obedience to delegated authority [i.e. church leadership].

These are the main points in the first two chapters of Clare’s short essay. Hopefully some interest was sparked about the Shepherding Movement and this book “Under Cover,” and how it relates to the methods practiced in UBF. We can learn much from other people’s mistakes. Sometimes our own errors are most obvious when someone else, like Bevere, promotes near identical teachings in a more direct way. This way we can see them as they are instead of in the hidden / subliminal forms they most often take. What do you think? Does the Shepherding Movement sound similar to church UBF style? Are you already familiar with Bevere’s book? If so, what can you share?

• Martin Luther (1483-1546): justification by faith alone.
• John Calvin (1509-1564): the sovereignty of God.
• Immanuel Kant (1724-1804): ethics.
• Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834): feeling.
• Rudolf Otto (1869-1937): the holy.
• Adolf von Harnack (1851-1930): the fatherhood of God.
• Karl Barth (1886-1968): Word of God.
• Karl Barth: crisis.
• Emil Brunner (1889-1966): personal encounter.
• Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976): self-understanding.
• Paul Tillich (1886-1965): dialectical self-negation.
• G. Ernest Wright (1909-1974): acts of God.
• Gerhard Ebeling (1912-2001): language event.
• Jürgen Moltmann (1926): hope.
• Gustavo Gutierrez (1928): liberation.
• Harvey Cox (1929): secularity.
• Wolfhart Pannenberg (1928): resurrection.

Frame himself chose divine lordship, or God’s lordship as his central theme. Much can be learned from studying the Bible according to such themes. Each theme constitutes a perspective on the whole of Scripture. A full account of each theme will include all the theology (the study of God) of the Bible. The discussion of a biblical theme may be a good way of teaching the Bible, but it is not the Bible. With any theme, we should expound it according to its biblical meaning (exegesis) and not be according to what we imagine it to be (eisegesis).

“What is the central theme of Jesus’ life?” I could say the following: love, grace, mercy, forgiveness, long suffering patience, kindness, gentleness and tolerance, friendship, humility, transparency, fatherly (and motherly), holiness, righteousness. Even though Jesus is without doubt the perfect righteous Judge who will judge the living and the dead, the righteous and the unrighteous, I do not often think of Jesus as one who is very angry with the incorrigible and besetting sins of others. Yes, he spoke often about hell, and yes, he rebuked the horrible hypocritical religious leaders. Yet, the central theme of his life is love. I believe that’s what we think of when we think of our Lord.

What about myself? What might be the central theme of my life? I simply love to fight with anyone and everyone. So, go ahead, make my day. I even “fight” with my wife by teasing her almost every day. Most of the time, she laughs. But when my timing is off, boy, does she get mad! Then I better be “nice” the rest of the day.

What do I want the central theme of my life to be? It should be like that of Jesus. I want it to be grace (Acts 20:24) and love (1 Jn 4:19; Jn 13:34-35). I know love and grace only because of the grace of God freely and unconditionally lavished on me. Yet, my life comes up short. In the theological jargon of “already and not yet,” I am already full of love and grace, and yet not yet, until my Lord returns.

What is the central theme of your life?

A Clear ubf Teaching: more work=more blessing

This ubf teaching is “based on the Bible”. Matthew 25:21 says, “His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord”. The ubf chapter director taught us many times that:

“The kingdom of God is not communist, it is capitalist. It is a kingdom of justice. So the more you work the more you have. The more you do to feed sheep the much reward you will receive from God in heaven. There is no equality in the kingdom of God. The more one served on the earth the more he will have in heaven. The more you serve on the earth the higher you’ll have the position in the kingdom of God. And who serve God more than ubf missionaries? Nobody! Many have become even enemies of the cross. But ubf missionaries sacrificially serve God’s world mission. They will have the highest reward in the kingdom of God and will be the rulers over many”.

I want to provide some practical application of this ubf teaching which the director also gave us. Once I fished a new sheep. And the director told me “to give the sheep to the missionary because he will serve the sheep better than you”. I asked a simple question, “Why?”. So there was a special meeting in the chapter to help this proud shepherd. Four Korean missionaries and one proud Russian shepherd participated. The director asked the shepherd, “What do you think who is higher and better before God: a missionary or a native shepherd?” The shepherd answered, “I believe that a man can become a shepherd or a missionary only by God’s grace and in this grace missionaries and shepherds are equal”. The director said (or rather yelled)…

“What?! How could you even think this way?! You are proud like Satan! A shepherd can never become equal to a missionary, never! Every missionary sacrificed his homeland, left his country and went to another country as a missionary. This alone makes every missionary much higher than any shepherd before God. And what, do you think that a shepherd can become equal with a missionary in the kingdom of God?! Never! Missionaries sacrificed more and that’s why before God whatever you do you will always be lower than missionaries! You are just a shepherd, a low soldier, and missionaries are like generals”.

Then the director explained to me that because I cannot become equal to a missionary then it doesn’t matter if I give my sheep to the missionary. I should devote myself to more fishing (anyway my heavenly reward will be low no matter what I do).

Another missionary told me that if I give a sheep to the director then God will give me two other sheep instead. This missionary had already given his two sheep (who were shepherds at the time) to the director and was never able to fish a new sheep since that. The director never had a sheep whom he fished himself. He simply took all the sheep in the chapter to himself. And he said very often that he raised many disciples in Russia, “not like you, lazy shepherds who are busy with I don’t know what! You are cursed because you are not fulfilling your mission and are more busy with your jobs!”.

A servant among you?

Another basis for the teaching is John 13. Jesus washed the disciples’ feet. Then He said, “Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet”. And “Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him”.

The director taught us in this way:

“Look, I serve the whole chapter with the word of God and deliver the messages every Sunday. So I am like a servant among you. You are like masters. But who is higher before God: you or me? Of course it is me because I serve you”. Then, “Look, the servant is not greater than his lord. It is the same as in a family. Father brings his son up. He wants his son to grow up well. But whatever the son does he will be always the son. He will never become equal to his father. He will never become greater than his father. I see that you can become a great servant of God but for me you will always be like a son and I will always be like a father for you. I can have peace and not be afraid of your spiritual growth because you can never overgrow me. And you can grow only when I grow and train you well. So if you grow that means that I grow even more and train you well”.

The kingdom of unity and equality and love

Last week we had a group Bible study about the kingdom of heaven. And we talked about the beauty and attractiveness of God’s kingdom. We thought about the unity and equality and love in the Trinity of God. The kingdom of unity and equality and love is very attractive. Everyone would want to live in such a kingdom. It is the true paradise. And if a church is at least like a shadow of this kingdom of God then many people would want to be part of the church, part of the brotherhood of love. But I said, “You know, Korean missionaries believe that there must be hierarchy in the church and there will be hierarchy in the kingdom of heaven. They believe that they will have very high positions in heaven and will rule over many simple people like we are. So if that be true would you like to enter such kingdom of heaven and live there forever?”.

Guess what the reaction was… Everyone agreed that such a kingdom with Korean rulers would be very unattractive. And everyone agreed that this hierarchy and lording over and pride of Korean directors led the native people out of the ubf chapter. (btw if you make a google search for Presbyterian churches in Moscow you will find about 60 of them and absolutely all of them have Korean pastors/directors and mostly each of them consists of only the Korean pastor’s family. These churches with Korean pastors don’t attract anyone in Moscow and it is not difficult to guess why).

As I thought about this ubf teaching, I began to understand why ubf directors act the way they act. They will never wish to “let the natives lead” and will never wish to let the Holy Spirit lead and will never wish to let Jesus be the King and the Lord in the life of believers because if they let they will lose their reward in heaven. If they lose their high directors’ positions on earth then they believe they will lose their high positions in heaven. If they lose their authority on earth then they will be simply losers, in this life and even in the life everlasting. I understand why ubf directors like being in photos so much (in the special places of honor and leadership), why they like reports so much. I understand why there is such a competitive atmosphere in ubf. I understand why ubf like to pray about numbers.

Do you share the Korean missionaries’ beliefs about the kingdom of God? Do you think these beliefs are based on the Bible? Would you like to participate in the competitive and number seeking labour and other ubf activities? Is the kingdom of God more like capitalist or communist?  Is the kingdom of God more like the Trinity or like an eternal hierarchy? Is the kingdom of God more like Christian or Confucian? Would you like to join or stay in such a Korean church with such a teaching and beliefs?

First, the final authority of UBF resides in the Scripture.

We confess that the final authority of UBF is the Word of God presented in the Old Testament and the New Testament. In UBF, what people fear most or are most conscious of is one man’s approval, namely that of Samuel Lee. Our joy and peace frequently depend upon his word. But people hardly display such intense fear of the Word of God, even when our actions visibly violated it. This alone shows that the final authority of UBF is clearly in the hand of a mere man, fallible, sinful as any others, and fundamentally mortal. Whatever this one person has done or said, good or bad, usually becomes an unspoken rule for and measure of all things. But we firmly believe that man’s authority or UBF’s traditions should never supercede the Word of God. The Scripture alone should be the absolute and final authority in ministry as well as in our life of faith.

Second, the gospel of grace is the interpretive key to the Scripture.

The gospel of Jesus Christ displayed through his death and resurrection is the Scripture within the Scripture. It is and should be the hermeneutical (interpretive) key to the Scripture and the guide to our practical life of faith. The original theological understanding of UBF that held grace and mission in harmony based upon Romans 1:5, has gradually given its way to a different theological reasoning. As the ambition of UBF became more business-oriented, the concept of “mission” emerged as primary, making grace a preparatory step toward the supremacy of “mission.”

Accordingly, UBF’s dominant hermeneutic was shifted from grace that compels believers to “mission and obedience.” (We do not mean superficial lip service given to grace. We are speaking of what is actually going on in the ministry and life of UBF. Practical life plainly shows that the dominant interpretive key to the Bible is “mission and obedience.” It is an unfortunate reductionism. It presents the Word of God as though it were only mission and obedience. There are many more mysteries that cannot be understood by this kind of approach. One good example is that in UBF, the Pauline epistles are hardly studied. The reason is obvious. People are already set with one kind of hermeneutics, that is, that of “mission and obedience.” So, they do not understand Paul’s tenacious emphasis upon the grace of Jesus Christ. So, it is not surprising that UBF has its own favorite texts that are used over and over. Due to its narrow hermeneutics, their biblical understanding is fundamentally selective. Their understanding of Christian life is like tunnel vision. It ends up seeing what it wants to see.) It is a well-known maxim in UBF that a person must be born thrice: first, physically; second, spiritually; third, in mission. This sort of biblical interpretation has well served the organization’s aim of increasing its membership and visibility.

Nevertheless, this kind of biblical hermeneutics caused a series of unforeseen problems that gradually perverted people’s understanding of the gospel and ministry. These ideas — mission and obedience — have reduced the gospel of Jesus Christ and his grace into “law and work” again. In UBF, one’s worth depends mainly upon how well one is able to “feed sheep.” (Or when one is not so successful in feeding sheep, one can find one’s place and position by making a good amount of offering. This is generally what Korean missionaries experience, although American students or leaders receive somewhat different treatment from the leadership of UBF.) Yet, it is not how well one feeds sheep, but salvation comes through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ that gives human dignity and worth to all believers. (We are new creations, new people who will inherit the kingdom of God. Not only so, the great salvation has begun in us, waiting for its completion. Jesus does command us to go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation and to feed his sheep. Nevertheless, all these commands are not given as the condition that Jesus will love us only when we succeed in feeding his sheep.) By reducing the gospel to “mission and obedience,” UBF unwittingly has undone what Christ did on the cross. Even if a particular idea, such as “mission and obedience,” is useful for a church, it becomes, without exception, harmful if it takes the place of the gospel of grace.

Therefore, we maintain that the central key to the Scripture and Christian life is the gospel of grace. Even the Great Commission cannot be thought of apart from the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is the dynamic efficacy of the grace of Jesus Christ that compels us to mission and obedience. We must return to the eternal foundation of the gospel that Christ through his death and resurrection laid.

Third, all human beings are sinners and Jesus Christ alone is our Savior and Lord.

The Scripture declares unequivocally that all human beings are without exception sinners. This means, first of all, that human beings are fundamentally in hostility with God (before our salvation). This also implies that as a human being each of us has an inherent “dark side” which so easily corrupts everything good, noble and worthy in them. This biblical view must be taken with all seriousness as the fundamental understanding of human beings for believers. Ironically, no Christian organization would talk so much about sin as UBF. Our testimony sharing or life testimony is mostly about sin and salvation, after which everyone wants to be a man or woman of mission.

Yet, sin understood in UBF testimony generally refers to moral failings or, in larger part, disobedience to a shepherd (especially to Samuel Lee). This kind of superficial understanding of sin does not take into account the dark side of human nature that lurks in everyone’s heart, even in a born-again Christian, since our redemption is not yet completed.

But in UBF, such a quintessential knowledge is suppressed in its attitude toward its supreme leader, because he virtually occupies the place of God since he is to be “absolutely obeyed.” (We are well aware that some might feel uncomfortable with such an assessment. This may sound too harsh. Yet, it must be carefully noted that when human beings offer their absolute obedience and loyalty to something or someone, this comprises a religious act (Rom 6:12-23). They consciously or unconsciously regard that object of their obedience as divine or nearly divine. The title that is so erratically and arbitrarily used in UBF is “the servant of God.” This title implies immediately obedience to that person. The business of absolute obedience belongs to the Creator, who alone deserves creation’s unswerving absolute obedience.)

This kind of atmosphere provides a fertile ground for abuse of power by those in el supremo. Even when he sins, often ridiculously lofty theological reasons are attributed to his failings, because people have already made this person a mythic figure. They can no longer look at his true identity as a human being with darkness and all kinds of shortcomings but they look at him with misty eyes that are blurred by their own myth-tinted glasses. Such habits are surreptitiously promoted by the supreme leader himself and by his cronies around him. Mythologizing a sinful human being only blinds people to the reality of human nature and drives them further away from the light of the biblical truth about human beings.

Therefore, we strongly denounce such a practice that blinds people to the true understanding about human nature that the biblical truth teaches us. Too much abuse of power has hurt many people of great integrity, purity and honesty. Many who have devoted their entire youth because of their love for the work of the Spirit have left because of such foolish and ignorant practices of exalting and mythologizing one man beyond what he really is. So, based upon this biblical truth about humanity, we resolutely affirm that every human society, political, military or religious, needs to have a system of checks and balances and of accountability.

We Christians already have one Lord who has absolute authority over us, the one who died for our sins and rose from the dead, thus proving that he is the Lord of lords. He alone is our Judge, who has already justified us. Jesus Christ alone has the final say. It is ultimately his word, not human approval, that matters in the end. Any word or act of a human being must be measured and checked according to the word of this Lord. We confess therefore that our consciences are bound only to this Lord alone and to no one else.

Fourth, the founder of UBF is the Holy Spirit and He is also the one who nourishes and preserves it.

The Bible matter-of-factly tells that the birth of a church is the work of the Holy Spirit. Only the Holy Spirit can work wonders of bringing various kinds of people together in the name of Jesus Christ and create a church. So-called human founders are in reality merely the instruments of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the founder of UBF is the Holy Spirit. Also, the historical fact that the birth of Korean UBF coincides with the outburst of various student movements and denominations originated by the Spirit during the 1950s and 1960s supports our claim that the Holy Spirit is the founder of UBF.

What made UBF what it is today is largely the dedication of numerous brothers and sisters who have selflessly sacrificed their time, material and family life for its well-being. It is preposterous to insist that UBF is one person’s work or his business. All credit therefore should be given to the Holy Spirit and to those who in obedience to the Holy Spirit’s guidance have boldly carried out mission in campuses and in foreign countries without receiving much recognition. The credit also should be given to those who have lost their lives in the middle of their missionary lives.

But the supreme leader of UBF has a self-conceited illusion that the birth of UBF was the work of a handful of human beings, especially himself. Owing to such a flawed view, he has often blatantly said that UBF is his. That kind of ignorance and misconception is visibly evident in his effort to hand the organization to his son. We absolutely reject such a claim about UBF. The rightful owner of UBF is the Holy Spirit rather than one person. It belongs to many people whose lives have made the organization as it is today. The ownership of UBF must be returned to its rightful owner(s).

We likewise believe that it is the Holy Spirit that nourishes and preserves UBF. The UBF supreme leadership thinks that it is his outstanding leadership skill that has nourished and preserved UBF thus far. The truth is that even his leadership was provided and sustained by the Spirit. Another aspect he has forgotten about is that not infrequently his own failings and mistakes drove UBF to unnecessary crises that threatened its validity and existence. (He thinks that all the attacks he received over the years are because he exclusively preached the gospel. But that argument is far from the truth. Many of these attacks came because of his various corrupt practices, his very suspicious use of offerings, the habit of bribery, physical violence, the habit of blaming the underlings for his own mistakes, and the like. Because of his unnecessary egotistic stubbornness, we are often labeled as a “cult,” thus making our future grim. It must be noted that we are not afraid at all to die for the Lord and we are confident that if we are attacked and falsely accused it is because we indeed preached the gospel with a clean conscience. That is why we have given up everything and come to this land. Do not say that we try to avoid suffering for the gospel. But we feel stupid and dumb when we know we suffer because of our own stupidity and arrogance.) But the Spirit, despite his failures and shortcomings, has kept and preserved UBF and made it grow better through adversities.

Fifth, UBF is a member of the body of Christ, that is, the Universal Church, whose head is Jesus Christ our Lord.

The Church, namely the body of Christ, has unity in that all the members belong to the one head. Just as a member, such as a hand or a foot, cannot live when it is severed from the rest of the body, UBF, when cut off from the rest of the body, cannot be a healthy and living organization. UBF has been as though it were all hand or all foot, because it has failed to recognize the needs to be united with other members of the body. Behind such an exclusive attitude lies the egotism of one person, whose upbringing has shaped him into a paranoid, compulsive and self-conceited person. His unhealthy personality has strongly shaped the character and ethos of UBF. That is why often excessive and unfounded elitism and “green-beret-ism” characterizes UBF. Such attitude is an organizational pride detrimental for the unity of the body of Christ. We believe that recognizing ourselves humbly and joyfully as part of the body of Christ prevents us from spreading the poison of such organizational and spiritual pride, which works deadly influence upon the body of Christ everywhere. (Various Christian groups are characterized by this kind of exclusive attitude. They usually cause division in the body of Christ. UBF also has committed this sin of exclusivism. Saying blatantly that Billy Graham is nothing, but he (Samuel Lee) is the one who changed American history (at the UBF USA staff meeting, Sept. 2000 in Chicago) shows how far this kind of exclusivism has distorted his view of himself and UBF. It has reached the dangerous point of self-delusion both personally and institutionally. Earlier, he resented that Rev. Han received The Templeton Award, because he believes that he was greater than Rev. Han and he should have gotten the award. He as well as UBF has become a silly little frog in a little pond, who thinks that little pond is the whole world.) After all, the church is a small community in a vast unbelieving world. We need each other and must learn to work with others to serve our Lord in the world.

Sixth, the Holy Spirit has endowed particular gifts to UBF that characterize it from others, namely campus ministry, one-on-one Bible study, disciple-making, and world mission.

UBF in general has been given by the Holy Spirit the gifts of campus ministry, one-on-one Bible study, disciple-making and world mission. These common traits, while binding all UBF chapters together, gave particular characteristics to UBF, which distinguish it from other organizations.

As the place of the Holy Spirit was gradually reduced to an insignificant one in the theology of UBF, these gifts, divorced from the Spirit, turned into business agendas and objectives of UBF. They no longer were understood as “gifts” but institutional methodologies, by which UBF would carry on its business. Further, they became the very elements by which UBF began to identify itself.

Initially, it seemed very smart to make such a move. But the fallout of such a move became all too clear over the years. It produced suffocating uniformity that stifled the quality growth of UBF. Satisfied with the initial success, the supreme leader further reinforced this uniformity by trying to mold, in the name of training, everyone’s thoughts, worldview, values and to a large measure, the character just like his. For this goal, he ordered every staff to copy his message and deliver it every week. He also made everyone in UBF write a testimony on the basis of his message every week. Consequently, everyone was gradually conditioned and molded to look at the world and faith through this one man’s eyes. His way was the way. (This was done in the pretext that without Newton there is no Einstein. The sad reality is that when everyone is talking about the theory of relativity, UBF staffs are still trying to understand Newton’s gravity. Without Newton we have Bill Gates.) Uniformity became the gospel of UBF. And UBF became an intellectually dull and weary place. (We can tell you we did not and do not look forward to our staff meetings. We would rather get stuck in the airplane for its cancellation or delay or on the freeway because of snowstorm. We hated to go to these meaningless gatherings.)

We believe that “true unity” need not be uniformity. Further, it needs to be clarified that in an absolute sense these gifts, campus ministry, one-on-one Bible study, and world mission, do not truly comprise the fundamental identity of UBF. Ultimately, these things are yet earthly and temporal. These things give a temporary identity of our group that the Spirit created for in this generation. (Earlier, when our el supremo was led by the Spirit and was not spiritually petrified, he often said that UBF would serve the purpose of God for our generation. He even said that if it was God’s will it was fine with him, even if UBF was to disappear. I do not know where such confidence in the Spirit has gone and now he is clinging to these things as though they were the only true gospel. He is sadly self-conceited.) Our confidence and hope at present moment is that the Spirit will continue to preserve UBF, as it has been. As long as the Spirit leads us through these gifts, we will obey him wholeheartedly and carry these out with conviction and dedication. Nevertheless, we do not and will not make the mistake of making these gifts something “absolute,” the mistake that has turned the gospel into work and the living gifts into uniform business objectives. Our faithfulness and commitment is with the Holy Spirit, whose guidance alone is absolute. Wherever the Spirit of Christ leads us, we will faithfully be there with all our hearts. We affirm that only with the Spirit, our future is wide open.

Seventh, the Holy Spirit has distributed various gifts within each UBF chapter among its members, so as to mold it into a community filled with fruits of the Spirit.

As the Holy Spirit establishes a church, he gives various gifts to its individual members, so that they can serve the body of Christ. The ultimate goal of distributing various gifts is to create the Christian community, the community that is filled with the fruits of the Spirit. Christian churches that reveal these fruits will most convincingly bear witness to its Lord Jesus Christ.

When UBF reduced the gifts of the Spirit to simple uniformity, the community became fundamentally a mission institution. The ultimate goal became to stimulate people’s productivity, namely to bring more people. The best way to achieve this objective was to make its members compete with each other. Competition to bring more “sheep” became the very driving force of UBF to success. Members competed among themselves; a group against another; a chapter against another; a region against another.

In the process, UBF lost its true Christian substance. It was Christian only in name and appearance, but its inner self was no different from a secular business firm. (A lay graduate fellowship member who later became a full-time staff member, due to the blessing of the Spirit upon his ministry, confessed he was shocked at the rampant jealousy and competitiveness among the staff members when he attended their meetings. Having experienced how secular work places function, he told some of the staff members that their gatherings were worse than those of secular business firms.) It was number, number, number, that counted most. It was so with almost every UBF chapter. (In order to lessen the pressure and stress that came from this competition, the supreme leader skillfully uses music, drama, and other things. But what could these artificial entertainment do when the fruits of the Spirit were taken away or placed in the backseat of the ministry?) Therefore, we sincerely advise each UBF chapter to relinquish the competition-oriented practice that has been manipulated for too long by one man but promote a Christian community that truly and genuinely reflects the image of Jesus Christ our Lord.

UBF must bring the theology of the Holy Spirit to the fore and recognize his sovereignty and his many gifts with which he equips the body of Christ. There are many gifts that are more important and precious than campus ministry, one-on-one Bible study, disciple-making, and world mission, though they may not seem so useful or practical for success. (We mean the gifts that truly hold the inner self of a community, such as virtue, compassion, helping the poor, ability to reconcile, making the atmosphere positive and bright, administrative ability, and the like, the gifts the Bible regards highly.)

Lest someone should falsely accuse us of promoting tongue speaking, which in our time causes so many painful divisions in the church, let us make it clear. We confess and uphold that whatever gifts the Bible speaks of should not be prohibited, but they should be carefully examined and utilized according to the biblical norms. No one gift, supernatural or natural, should be overly emphasized over the rest. All must be treated with equal respect and care, because they are, after all, gifts from God, not the product of our own making.

Eighth, UBF is a Christian community both in relation to and radically set apart from the world. This two-fold, paradoxical relationship must be carefully and faithfully maintained, so that we may be in the world but not of it.

The church is born not out of the world but in the middle of it. So, it is the church’s ongoing struggle to keep the delicate balance to the world and yet to radically separate from it. UBF started out, like many influential Christian organizations throughout history, with its strong emphasis upon the radical separation from the world. It rightly found the radical teachings of the gospel that commanded to give up personal comfort, worldly desires, love for money, and so on. Such a radical obedience to the gospel laid a firm foundation for the practical life and ethic of UBF. Even now, many young men and women courageously choose such a radical obedience to the gospel.

Nevertheless, UBF has failed to establish a proper relation to the world. The early church related itself to the surrounding world by showing the compassion of God for the poor, the helpless and the needy. But UBF leadership, now driven mostly by business sense, has failed to teach them how to relate to the world as Christians. As a result, even when people around us experience all kinds of suffering, we did not care for them as long as we found student “sheep” and UBF kept growing. (Such attitude is often seen among some missionaries overseas, who can scarcely find jobs. With the justification that these missionaries need living faith, they are simply left alone without any financial relief. Don’t we have the responsibility to help them become established financially in those lands where they are aliens and have no job opportunities? Do they not have enough difficulties by which they can learn living faith?) In a sense, we have become a callous and heartless organization that only cares about its own business.

The underlying philosophy of the supreme leader whose idea pervades in every aspect of UBF’s theology and practice is founded upon capitalism. To him, UBF ministry is a business venture for Christ. He transformed Jesus, who told the rich young man to sell everything, give it to the poor and follow him, into a greedy and money-collecting capitalist. (Is this the same Jesus who called Levi the tax collector out of collecting money into his savings to serving people?) He collects tithes from every chapter in the U.S. We also know that from other continents, even from the African continent, he collects tithes. A small chapter often sends the entire offering to Chicago. We did not know that the Jesus of UBF was so concerned about his organization’s income growth and was so happy that he now has several million dollars in savings. Perhaps this Jesus would love to have his image printed upon the green paper. Chicago UBF is like the Dead Sea. Everything goes in but nothing comes out. (Having seen the way money has been used, we now believe that it is not even his pure desire to indeed do good business for Christ but rather it is his love of money and his addiction to it. Although he claims to receive only moderate salary, the reality is that he is the only one who has access to the treasury. There have been demands to make public how the past offerings have been used, but he has totally ignored such demands. There are too many suspicions about how he deals with money. He is more concerned about IRS [the US tax agency] than with the saints’ approval. But isn’t the approval of the saints much more important in God’s sight than that of IRS? Wouldn’t the approval of the former represent that of God closely, since they are children of God? Most of all, what does collecting money from all over the world have to do with the radical calling of the gospel? Does Jesus ever call UBF to collect a huge sum of money? Doesn’t his command to the rich young man apply to UBF, too? Just because it is an organization, it does not have to listen to such a call?)

The leader’s suspicious behavior about money contradicts the radical call of the gospel that many people have faithfully obeyed. After many years of observation about his dealing with money, our conclusion is that he simply loves money.

Therefore, we call for the legitimate audit of all the accounts of offerings received all these years. Non-profit organization status should not be the covering for misuse of the precious offerings. We want an honest bookkeeping and annual report of how much came in and how it is used. Rather than heartless capitalism at the center of UBF, we want the compassion of God to be the guide. A considerable part of the money should be used to lessen the sufferings of the people, including some of the missionaries who have no way to find jobs in foreign countries. The radical nature of the gospel should be the controlling principle of UBF material life instead of capitalism. If not, we will be hypocrites who, while crying out for obedience to the gospel, practice money-loving capitalism.

Ninth, the basic structure of a church consists of worship, education, mission and help for the poor.

This is the basic structure of a church. Achieving health of a church depends upon how firmly these things are in place and how well they are practiced. But UBF’s main emphasis has been mission. Its effort for education has been one-sided for so long. And it has not had any significant theology for either worship or helping the poor. As a result, UBF has become a deformed body, which is passionate on mission and yet without mercy for the poor. We need to restore these four basic pillars for the spiritual health of UBF.

Worship: The Holy Spirit created the body of Christ, ultimately for the glory of God as it exalts and worships God for what God has done in Christ. But UBF’s worship service is the occasion for measuring one’s success every week by counting the number of attendants, because all the chapters have to report it to the headquarters. Worship is a time for everyone to give glory to God and Christ for the grace he has bestowed upon us and receive blessings through it. We must return to the basic aim of worship. Worship should become a joyful, free, and meaningful occasion where we meet our gracious God.

Education: So far, one man’s messages have shaped and even conditioned many people’s view about life and faith, view, ethics and so on. This view has been too narrow for UBF staffs and members to encounter the changing Korean ethos let alone the world. Now it is time for UBF to break out of the confinement of this monochromatic view and to spread out its wings and grow in depth and height and length and width. For this reason, it is imperative for staffs to receive theological education and go through a serious theological paradigm shift to face the future better prepared. It is also necessary to raise well-educated theologians, biblical scholars, historians, counselors, and the like, who can make worldwide contributions to the church of Christ. (Doesn’t anyone notice that those who left UBF have become respected and useful leaders in the Christian churches with better education? Why can’t we have such people? Why do they have to leave us to be such people?) We denounce some people’s efforts to get titles from shadowy institutions without actually earning the diploma. We must abandon this kind of dishonorable approach. Why not let some capable people receive good education from legitimate institutions? What kind of life philosophy does this kind of attitude teach to those who follow us? While we teach them to go the way of truth and the way of the cross, we find the lowest and laughable means to get a title. Why?

Lay members also must have opportunities to receive better spiritual nurturing. Unless these people are enlightened, the leaders will have too many opportunities to do wrong things without being criticized. But when they are properly enlightened, leaders will be helped because these people will keep the system of checks and balances in place. (Such an attitude has caused so many wrongs to be covered up and untreated. Not hurting sheep may come from good intention of loving them, but it proves to be a fatal mistake not to let the sheep know about the existing problems, because our good intentions prevented them from being enlightened. What kind of people will these sheep become? They think that there is no problem in UBF and their shepherds are like angels. We simply make them stupid rather than enlighten them. This will not do.)

Mission: We have sent 1,500 missionaries overseas. Yet, we recognize that most of them find it difficult to adjust to different cultures, customs, intellectual environment and so on. We need to think about how to effectively help these missionaries to adjust themselves there and be part of the society. Also, it is necessary for some of them to attend local seminaries to understand the spiritual climate of the society to be better equipped for mission work. We must have some missionaries who excel in their surroundings and leave a lasting spiritual legacy in their respective mission fields.

Furthermore, we need to help these missionaries to be able to think and analyze the culture, society, custom and traditions of the nations they went to. In this way, they can inform those who are at home of their mission in better ways than simply sharing our traditional mission report about how many sheep and how they struggled with them, although these things can be reported in a proper context.

Helping the poor: Helping and caring for the poor is the passion and compassion of God. It is how we relate ourselves to the unbelieving world, looking at those who are in need with the mercy and compassion of God. But due to our philosophy of mission as everything we have failed to exhibit God’s compassion to the world. After all, it is because God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son. Surely, helping the poor does not bring us tangible return. But do we always need to have some kind of return for every work we do? Have we become such calculating capitalists? Helping the poor is in a sense like a burnt offering. It is offered purely to God and it is gone to ashes. There is no return. But that is central to the sacrifices that please God most. Just as our tithing keeps us from becoming materially-oriented people, so does giving to the poor prevents our institutions from becoming materially obsessed, as UBF is at present. In this way, we can function as the salt and light of the world.

In conclusion, we want UBF to be reformed in tune with the gospel truth. We do not do so lightheartedly or in mere rebellion or for the sake of some kind of personal gain. We sincerely advocate reform but we do so because UBF’s basic theology and practice have gone astray from the gospel of grace. As we stated earlier, mission and obedience are two of the most significant biblical truths. Nevertheless, no matter how excellent or good these are, when they are treated as though they are everything there is about the gospel, these become a hindrance to the great truth of the gospel. The same attitude stands true with people. The gospel of Jesus Christ is a profound truth, too profound for any human intentions, no matter how good, to fathom it all, too deep for one man’s insight to reach to its depth. One man-centered system must go. Also, we want to suspend competition-oriented community life and build the community of love intended by the Spirit. We want to restore the joy and freedom of the gospel, as we passionately carry out mission to campuses and to the world. We want to give our whole and undivided loyalty to God not to erratic, deceitful and mortal people.

Our reform is about the hope, dream and vision for the future. We want to dare to dream these dreams again, because we know for certain that it is possible to achieve them. What is more, yes, we have been there, when the Spirit first gave birth to us. We are sure that the Spirit will not repeat exactly the same thing that took place earlier during the revival. History does not really repeat itself, but each event is unique by itself. We are sure of what the Spirit can do. He can create a new future, freeing us from all these human abuses, corruption and falsehood. He can give us new vision. That is what our reform is all about. For this reason, we have concluded that UBF needs to change, and especially its supreme leader needs to change and practice transparency and honesty about materials and power.

(source)

Here is a list of the second part of the ubf heritage. These slogans become a kind of hamster wheel for ubf members.

Section II – Behavioral slogans
the ubf lifestyle
8. House churches
9. One to one Bible study
10. Disciple-making ministry
11. Daily Bread
12. Testimony writing & sharing

House Churches

A house church is a family who has gone through the arranged marriage process (marriage by faith), left their home ubf chapter, and gone out to another campus through the process called pioneering. A house church often refers to a ubf member’s dwelling that is used for UBF activities. Many small ubf chapters meet in leaders’ houses. Leaders often make analogies between this and the practice of the early Christian church meeting in members houses. Note that “house church” can sometimes have a more specific meaning, namely it can describe the union of those who are married in ubf and have not actually “pioneered” yet.

One to One/1:1 

This is the core element of the UBF indoctrination and manipulation system. Bible study is always done in a hierarchical setting with one person acting as the Bible teacher (shepherd) and the other one as the Bible student (sheep). All initiates have to go through this one-to-one Bible study every week, often for many years, and often continuing with a senior missionary as teacher even after they have become shepherds themselves. In addition, there are also group Bible study where usually the chapter director acts as the Bible teacher. UBF Bible studies are always based on a questionnaire. UBF uses human effort (i.e prayers and repetition) instead of historical, intellectual or spiritual study of the Bible. In this way, Bible study often becomes an idol. After many years, a UBFer cannot stop Bible study even if a friend or loved one is in need.

Disciple-making ministry

“Raising up disciples” is what UBF considers to be their main task. This means parenting young converts like little children and giving them “obedience training” until they comply with how UBF expects them to behave. ubf shepherds and missionaries are taught to be the new parents of college students, often replacing the role of their natural parents.

Daily Bread

Daily Bread is the title of a UBF devotional that members are required to buy every quarter and that is used in UBF early morning prayer meetings. “To write daily bread” means writing a UBF type sogam based on a passage of the Daily Bread booklet. UBF likes to claim they have invented Daily Bread devotionals, but in fact the material was copied from the Scripture Union booklets, and even translated directly from the Scripture Union Daily Bread. Later, UBF replaced the Bible comments and prayers with their own Bible interpretations. UBF’s version of the booklets are sold to UBF members at a much higher price than the original booklets. Recently, UBF created UBF Press, a publication department, to publish and sell Daily Bread booklets and other material.

Testimony/Sogam/Reflecting writing/sharing

A sogam is a Korean term meaning one’s impressions, opinions, thoughts, feelings and sentiments about something. This term is used in UBF for the written statements based on Bible passages that UBF members are required to write and share every week (see testimony writing and sharing). The idea behind this practice is that members don’t just read a Bible passage, but interpret it in the sense of UBF and give a personal response in front of the group about how they intend to apply it to themselves. Usually this happens by repenting for not having done enough UBF activities or for not being obedient enough, and the promise to do better in the next week, often setting concrete targets. That way, members are able to indoctrinate each other, and leaders are able to closely monitor and control the spiritual growth of their members.

The first part of the heritage is what I call the  “mindset section” or the “ideology section”. The first 7 points are concepts and ideas, describing the ubf idea of orthodoxy. The last 5 points however, describe specific actions and behaviors, and make up the ubf idea of orthopraxy. While the first section had many vague thoughts and often was open to individual interpretation as to what the slogans meant, we will find that the second section is more clearly defined. This second section really gets into the heart of the ubf lifestyle, and there is little doubt as to what these last 5 points mean.

Section I – Ideological slogans
the ubf mindset
1. Back to the Bible
2. World mission
3. Campus evangelism
4. Manger ministry
5. A spirit of giving
6. Spiritual order
7. Lay missionaries

Section II – Behavioral slogans
the ubf lifestyle
8. House churches
9. One to one Bible study
10. Disciple-making ministry
11. Daily Bread
12. Testimony writing & sharing

What does the mind of a UBF shepherd Look Like?

Before getting into point 8, I’d like to look back on an image of the first 7 points. The pictures I chose for the articles were specifically chosen to represent each slogan. If we make a collage of those pictures, we get an accurate visualization of the ubf mindeset. Click the image to see a larger sized image. These images permeate the mind of every ubf person. Understanding this snapshot is crucial when interacting with ubf people.

ubf-heritage-ideology

Self-Supporting Work

This heritage point is perhaps the most redeeming. However, it appears only as a sub-point in the condensed heritage list:

“Jesus gave up his heavenly glory and was born in a manger of a stable. He had no religious title or position such as the Pharisees or the Sadducees or a Rabbi. Apostle Paul also considered all positions and whatever was to his profit as rubbish, and served the work of God as a self-supporting tentmaker missionary. This is the spirit of self-supporting lay mission, which the UBF ancestors wanted to have.”

“Now we know that there are countries that do not allow a pastor to enter as a missionary, but open their doors to self-supporting lay missionaries. Thus most theologians kept insisting that world mission must be done through lay movements. God gave this direction to our ancestors, and our self-supporting lay missionary work became an exemplary movement among the Christian world. In spite of these kinds of fruit and recognition, we, as lay people, will have to bear all kinds of pains and temptations. But I pray that we may treasure manger spirit and self-supporting lay missionary spirit rather than worldly positions, power or glory.”

source: ubf history

The good, bad and ugly

Good (keep it)

– Lay mission enables a much broader scope of the body of Christ to participate in mission programs.

– Lay mission embodies much of what Jesus taught and emulates several of Jesus’ own mission methods.

– Lay mission opens doors that might otherwise be shut to officially sanctioned missionaries.

Bad (change it)

– The risk here is to shun the orthodox history of Christian mission, such as ordination processes, robust liturgical processes and/or funded missions programs. All of those are valid options for Christian mission work.

Ugly (stop it)

– The ugly happens when “self-support” is taken too far and becomes “business mission“. When that happens, ubf members’ lives become wholly entagled in the ubf heritage (church at ubf, family at ubf, work at ubf).

– Stop turning “self-support” into “no support”. Missionaries are humans too, and need all kinds of support, not just getting “re-charged” by visiting Korea.

– Stop demanding everyone to be a “lay missionary”. There is a huge need for robust, ordained, educated, non-ubf trained people who can shore up the holes in the ubf ideology.

Meaning #1 – God>Man>Creation

I studied all 50 chapters of Genesis 4 times in my ubf tenure. Every time, “spiritual order” was explained as the order of creation. The original order was that God created the earth and the animals, etc and created Man last. But because God gave Man a mission to “be fruitful and multiply”, the “spiritual order” became: God>Man>Creation. And then I was taught that without ubf mission, I lose “spiritual order” and become an animal.

Meaning #2 – God>Shepherds>sheep

The second meaning was taught to me from just about every bible passage we ever studied in ubf. All the bible teaches that we must submit willingly and joyfully to authority, first submitting to our lifelong, personal, human shepherd as our expression of love and submission to God. I heard the term “benevolent dictator” often. I was trained and taught to be a “benevolent dictator”.

Meaning #3 – God>Man>Woman

I was surprised to find a third meaning from this message (link is below). This lecture makes it clear ubf noticed a misuse of meaning #2, and tries to correct the  meaning.

“Within the church there must be spiritual order based on the word of God and spiritual love based on Jesus’ sacrifice.”

“Women should cover their heads to keep spiritual order (3-6). The term “spiritual order” has been used frequently in UBF. What does it mean here? Look at verse 3. “Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” Here, “head” signifies the one in authority. Jesus Christ is Lord of all and he is the authority over every person in the church. Each church member should enjoy a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and live in submission to him, the head. The same word, “head,” describes the position of a husband in a family. The husband is the head of the family. His wife should submit to him to keep spiritual order in the family.”

Note: this message goes on to also teach my meaning #2 above:

“Spiritual order is not a synonym for Confucian hierarchy or another way of saying “dictatorship.” It means there is mutual love and respect, necessary authority and willing submission.”

Some may raise an issue here, for many abuses have happened in the name of “spiritual order.” Paul is not condoning abusive relationships. Rather, Paul refers to the holy example of the Father and Christ as the model for us all to strive for in learning submission to Christ and one another.”

source: Chicago UBF message in 2008

The good, bad and ugly

Good (keep it)

– ?? I’m at a loss on this one. This one is so confusing that I can’t really say anything is good about it.

Bad (change it)

– Clarify what this means. Don’t have multiple meanings.

Ugly (stop it)

– Stop using this slogan.

A self-supporting spirit

“At the beginning of UBF ministry, Koreans were accustomed to receiving something from others. After the American G.I.s came to Korea, the first English expression they learned was, “Hello, give me chocolate, give me gum.” The Korean government could decide its annual budget only after the American Congress approved of the amount of aid to Korea. In addition, Korea received aid of a large amount of food and goods. Soon we began to think that we could not survive without receiving aid from others. In this atmosphere, the UBF ancestors struggled furiously to overcome Korean fatalism, to learn the spirit of giving and to live the life of giving.”

“Then a remarkable and historical event in UBF history happened. In 1963, one day when we needed to print something, Mother Barry suggested that we collect the expenses from students. Then Dr. Samuel Lee rebuked her, saying, “How do you expect poor students to pay for it? Since you are rich, you pay for everything.” But Mother Barry insisted, “We must collect it for the sake of education.” Their argument continued until Mother Barry broke into tears.”

“That night Dr. Samuel Lee could not sleep because he made a woman cry. He began to read the Bible. He realized a great lesson that the Bible teaches. God gave his One and Only Son for sinners. Jesus also came to this world and gave everything for sinners and finally gave his own life for us. Jesus taught his disciple a giving spirit, saying, “You give them something to eat.” Apostle Paul accepted Jesus’ word, “It is more blessed to give then to receive,” and practiced a giving life and became a self-supporting missionary.”

source: ubf history

Forced giving

“In May 1966, the world mission offering work had enrolled 162 members. With this offering we could procure centers at Jeonju, Daejun, Daegu and Seoul and send out shepherds. There is a legendary event at the time of pioneering Daejun. One day Dr. Samuel Lee visited the Daejun UBF center and took out the door of the Kwangju UBF center and loaded it to a truck in order to give it to Daejun UBF. One man who saw this got angry at Dr. Samuel Lee that Dr. Lee took out the door without discussing with him.”

source: ubf history

The good, bad and ugly

Good (keep it)

– As the bible says, it is indeed better to give than to receive.

Bad (change it)

– The bible does not say “never receive”. All human beings need both giving and receiving. Leadership requires sabbatical-type periods of inactivity.

– Realize and accept that we are not living in 1960’s war-torn Korea.

– Realize that in many countries where Korean missionaries have gone for ubf, they have much more than “5 loaves and 2 fish”. Don’t break them down until they pretend to have nothing when they have much.

Ugly (stop it)

– Stop treating human beings like perpetual resources. Stop squeezing the lifeblood, the energy, the creativity, the happiness out of ubf members. Stop suffocating students.

– Stop demanding the money and other resources to flow into a headquarters chapter. HQ has a “hands off” approach to satellite chapters, expecting them to give to the central chapter. In other words, support the self-supporters.

– Stop forcing people to give and to sacrifice. People will be far more willing to give when they choose to do so of their own accord. Stop doing illegal activity in order to “bless” and “help” people.

In their own words

Again I find it helpful to simply share ubf’s own words on “manger spirit”.

The ubf mindset of “worldly=non-ubf and godly=ubf” has much to do with this slogan of “manger ministry”, imitating the actual manger instead of Jesus himself.

“Though Jesus is the Creator God, he became flesh and was born in a manger of a stable in order to save all the people of the world from their sins. Jesus gave up the glory of the heavenly kingdom, humbled himself and gave even his life as a ransom for sinners. The UBF ancestors struggled hard to imitate this Jesus and to dedicate their possessions and youth without reservation for Jesus and his gospel. Wherever they went, they were noticed as UBF people. Especially, women did not put any make-up on their faces, wearing low-hill shoes and carried large handbags. In their large handbags, they carried their Bible, Bible study notes and cookies. What distinguished them from worldly people was not just their outward appearances but also their noble inner characters, which came from a manger spirit.”

Surprisingly, much of the elitism may stem from “manger ministry” as well, and is often difficult to distinguish from another heritage point called “lay missionaries”.

“As the fruit of manger spirit, our ministry was inclined to raising up self-supporting lay shepherds and missionaries who had no religious position and power. Dr. Lee was called a shepherd as the first person in world history. The title, “shepherd” meant nothing to worldly people, and had no authority or power. Because of this title, we suffered a lot. After introducing ourselves as shepherds, we had to explain what a shepherd meant for a long time. Because of this unfamiliar title, people misunderstood us as strange people who belonged to a strange group. Some criticized us sharply, saying, “You did not graduate from a seminary. How can you dare to teach the Bible to others?” Others gave us friendly advice, saying, “Since you are eager to study the Bible and serve the work of God, why don’t you enter a seminary and be a pastor? We are willing to help you to do that.” In spite of all these difficulties, we took great pride in being called shepherds.”

source: ubf history

The good, bad and ugly

Good (keep it)

– I learned the value of sacrifice and humility.

Bad (change it)

– Instead of focusing on the “manger”, I find it far more life-giving to focus on Jesus directly.

Ugly (stop it)

– Bad financial decisions. Over the past 20 years, I’ve often made terrible financial decisions. Why? Because I was taught to have “manger spirit” which meant (in my mind) always driving a junk car on purpose, not taking care of house repairs and spending money first and foremost for ubf activities.

– As the ubf history page points out, the “manger spirit” slogan may apply more to women in ubf. Stop pretending to have a “manger” appearance.

In their own words

Before I share my thoughts, here is a published description of “Campus Evangelism”. This matches what I was taught.

In this way God gave our ministry the specific mission of raising students as spiritual leaders. A broken shepherd heart and a burning love towards students became the spirit of our ministry. Because of this we had to see ourselves as permanent students. Those who graduated from college and got a job did not think of themselves as salary men but took pride in being shepherds of students. Whether others recognized us or not, we loved students more than the president or the chancellor or professors.

 

We believed that we owned the campus. With this sense of mission and pride of being shepherds, we dedicated our youth and possessions to God. Especially, married women spent their time more on campus than at home, more in taking care of student sheep than their own children. Those who could not graduate from college came to our ministry and accepted campus mission. Though they were older than average students, they entered the college in order to shepherd college students. Moreover, even though the rent around the university was more expensive than other places, we wanted to live near the campus and feed student sheep with the word of God.

 

Maintaining the status of a permanent college student and campus shepherd is a peculiar way of life and required constant struggle. When old people kept on coming and going through the campus, they became the objects of suspicion and investigation. Some was accused of being a kind of criminal. To make matters worse, some missionaries were even put into prison, including Dr. Joseph Chung of Chicago UBF, who was imprisoned for a few days. In spite of all these hardships, we did not abandon campus mission because it was God who gave us the specific mission of campus evangelism, and this mission became our reason to live and the purpose of our lives

 

God did not call us to be ordinary people who does ordinary work. Among all peoples of all nations, God called us to be shepherds for students. Our mission does not end in gathering students. God called us to be disciple-makers who raise up spiritual leaders and shepherds. May God help us to keep this spiritual heritage of God’s specific calling to us as disciple-makers among college students to the end.

Source: ubf history

The good, bad and ugly

Good (keep it)

– Nothing good comes to mind about the slogan campus evangelism. I am too jaded by this one. Anyone?

Bad (change it)

– I cannot think of anything to change in this one. I can only think of things that must be stopped.

Ugly (stop it)

– I was taught to believe that we owned the campus. Note the statement above “We believed that we owned the campus.” This led to things like marching around the campus 7 times like Jericho, which I personally did not do but it was reported several times from other chapters. But I did walk on campus much and participated in ubf prayer meetings on campus. Some claimed they would bury their bones on campus.

– I was taught that ubf is a college ministry, and it is. But they also extend the ubf context to all ages of life. The have BBF (for babies), MBF (for middle school/elementary), HBF (for high school), UBF (for university). Then after that you go through MbF (marriage by faith) and start the whole cycle over again. The ubf people who become 60 or 70 years old are pressured to become “silver missionaries”, usually accompanied by a joke about “retire” meaning “put new tires on”. So ubf presents as a campus ministry, but tries to enforce all ages to conform to the campus ministry paradigm. You can’t have it both ways. Either ubf must choose to actually be a campus ministry only or create unique programs suited for various ages.

– I was taught to “be part of campus life” my whole life. As ubf’s own words say, “Maintaining the status of a permanent college student and campus shepherd is a peculiar way of life and required constant struggle.” ubf demands that you stay a permanent student. So ubf should not be surprised when many leaders in ubf eventually leave.

So to “do” world mission meant you go out into the world (i.e. the closest campus) and fish. To “fish” means to invite students to one-to-one bible study. This seemed to fit nicely with point 1 of the ubf heritage, “go back to the bible”.

The good, bad and ugly

Good (keep it)

– The world mission slogan helped me to expand my thinking beyond my own little world. Growing up as a country boy from a small hick town, this idea of serving the world was helpful.

– I learned to tolerate and accept people of different cultures and language than me.

Bad (change it)

– Emphasizing “Jesus’ world mission commands” lead me to ignore Jesus’ other commands, many of which are more important.

Ugly (stop it)

– I learned quickly that even though I was to think about many countries around the world, Korean culture was supreme.

– World mission taught me to lose my identity as an American and adopt the ubf version of Korean culture.

– I gave up all my dreams and sacrificed much in order to be a missionary to Russia, only to be told this would not be possible in ubf. I found out ubf is not a missionary sending organization. ubf is a Korean missionary sending organization. A small number of non-Koreans have been sent by ubf, but those actions seem to me to be just an appeasement.

Don’t spend too much effort interacting with culture or worrying about former members or thinking of ways to change the Sunday worship service or spending time with your family. I was taught that I could actually do these worldly things from time to time, but I had to make sure I always got back to reading the bible to get my mind and heart “cleaned up”. Go to your bible study appointments. Read the bible day and night. Read your bible as you work and eat. Memorize bible verses. Recite your memorization in front of various groups.

“Back to the bible” was ingrained in my mind through being reminded of several bible verses, especially: Deuteronomy 11:18 “Fix these words of mine in your hearts and minds; tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads.” Psalm 19:10 “They are more precious than gold, than much pure gold; they are sweeter than honey, than honey from the honeycomb.” Deuteronomy 8:3 “He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your ancestors had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord.”

I was taught to read the bible every day, to choose a key verse for my life, for each year and for my marriage, my children, my jobs, and every facet of my life. I was taught to assign a bible verse to every endeavour of life. I often memorized the key verses of the ubf daily bread booklet, in case someone asked me if I did daily bread that day.

The good, bad and ugly

Good (keep it)

– I learned many things about the bible characters and stories from verse by verse exposition. This was the normal, methodical method of reading the bible in ubf.

– I overcame a fear of reading bible in public.

– I began thinking seriously about doing what the bible says to do, and attemtped to live according to the bible.

– I learned to wrestle with God, spending much time thinking about how to apply bible verses in my life events.

Bad (change it)

– I was expected to only use the NIV translation of the bible.  This reveals that my study was shallow. Any serious bible student will use multiple versions, and spend time learning some Greek and Hebrew.

– I was taught to use the inductive approach only. This is where you observe facts of a passage in the bible, and then draw conclusions from those facts. However, most of the time I was told what the conclusion was supposed to be. Any serious bible student will use a combination of both inductive and deductive approaches. If you draw a conclusion from some verses, for example, that conclusion should be checked deductively with many other passages to see if it holds true.

– The emphasis of going back to the bible is on going to the Old Testament books. It means going back to the Moses or Joshua style of leadership. Any serious bible student however will study both the Old and the New, and Christians will emphasize the New Testament normally.

Ugly (stop it)

– Going back to the bible was a daily exercise in ubf. So much so that we neglected our children and family to attend bible study. This thinking taught me to choose bible study over children.

– Back to the bible thinking also means “back to UBF question sheets and lectures only.” Rarely if ever did we make connections with the mainline churches. I was taught that my “pure” inductive method with just the bible and ubf material was superior to any commentary or other church pastor’s opinion.

– Back to the bible means putting yourself back into the bible story. I was taught to put myself into the bible story and imitate the bible characters. I began to live in a fantasy world, thinking I was Joshua or Abraham or whichever character we studied.

– I spent much time reading the bible, but I was taught to treat my shepherds’ authority as greater than the bible’s authority. If there was a conflict between the bible and my shepherd or director, I was to listen to my shepherd.

– I began over-prescribing the bible for every life problem and situation. The bible became like a drug, soothing away all problems in life.

Result after 24 years

After more than two decades of living with “back to the bible” thinking, I find that I have lots of knowledge about the bible texts. However, I have little understanding of the meaning of the bible texts. I have little knowledge of 2,000 years of Christian history. I am just now discovering the Christian “greats” such as Charles Spurgeon. Just after leaving I found that I was a shallow, empty, heartless man.

What will happen if the bad is changed and the ugly is stopped?

If ubf people remove the bad and the ugly, they might feel as if their pure bible study is being infected. But I think it will be your emptiness being filled, your shallowness becoming deeper and your superficial relationships becoming more real. Removing the bad and ugly parts of “back to the bible” could be the first step on the road of healing and reconciliation.

So I kick off a 12 part series today in which I will review each of the long-version heritage statements. They are short, so much is left up to interpretation. But my 24 years in ubf qualify me to share and evaluate these points.

Here is the long-version, 12 point ubf heritage:

1. Back to the Bible
2. World mission
3. Campus evangelism
4. Manger ministry
5. A spirit of giving
6. Spiritual order
7. Lay missionaries
8. House churches
9. One to one Bible study
10. Disciple-making ministry
11. Daily Bread
12. Testimony writing & sharing

I was taught this passage from the NIV, which reads:

The Lord had said to Abram, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you.

²“I will make you into a great nation,
    and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
    and you will be a blessing.
³ I will bless those who bless you,
    and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
    will be blessed through you. (emphasis mine)

In the Bible study, I was encouraged to respond to God’s call like Abraham did, to leave my connections to my pre-UBF life and go to “…the place [God] will show [me],” which meant UBF ministry and campus mission. If I obeyed, I was told “…all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.” When I married, Dr. John Jun delivered our wedding address from Genesis 12:3, exhorting us to be a family of blessing who not merely enjoys God’s blessing but becomes a blessing to others. I was encouraged, “Become a source of blessing to other people like Abraham.” Of course, the best method of being a blessing—we were taught—is to go to the university campus and invite students to 1:1 Bible study, shepherding as many of them as possible so that they too may “become a blessing” by doing the same. The best method of being a blessing certainly did NOT involve much consideration for my own family.

But how correct is our interpretation of Gen 12:3? Did the Bible translation affect the way this verse was interpreted? Consider the way the NASB translates verse 3:

And I will bless those who bless you,
And the one who curses you I will curse.
And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.” (emphasis mine)

Notice that the word translated “people” in the NIV is translated “families” in the NASB. It is also translated “families” in the ESV, NLT, NRSV, and KJV. In fact, among the popular English translations, only the NIV uses the generic word “people” instead the more-specific word “families”. The Hebrew word is mishpachah. It occurs 301 times in the Old Testament, 177 times indicating family or families, 100 times indicating clan, and only 4 times indicating an unspecific group of people. While I don’t pretend to be an expert on Biblical Hebrew or exegesis, isn’t it interesting that the NIV, which is the main-stay English translation of UBF in North America, does not use the word families? Is it merely a coincidence that this arguably most-popular text in UBF avoids the word “family,” preferring to use “people”? Considering the accounts of Chris, big bear, myself, and others of how families in UBF have sometimes been neglected, abused, and disregarded, it begs the questions:

• Does our choice of Bible translation affect the way we interpret certain passages?
• Could the choice of Bible translation contribute to the pressure felt by many present and former UBFers to “…sacrifice family on the altar of UBF campus mission”?

Instead they are taught that “the disciples of Jesus are not born they are made through training by UBF shepherds” (and they are destined to be UBF shepherds all their lives and be forever thankful to their UBF missionaries even in the life everlasting). The young Christians are not encouraged to learn the will of God and to follow that will, to actually have Jesus as Lord. They are encouraged to obey or even to “just obey” their UBF shepherds “by faith” in hope that this way they will “grow spiritually” and become mature Christians, “good disciples” of Jesus and even the Green Berets of Christianity.

 So while in UBF any member can hear about “Jesus is our Lord” but can he/she experience that and understand what it actually means and live up to it without hindrance? Often the so called “former UBF members” testify that they could hear the voice of the Lord without any hindrance only after they obtained freedom from the many human (authority) voices of UBF missionaries and the very “busy” life in UBF activities. Often it is only then he/she makes the first step to being obedient to the Lord.

They say that an interpreter is good when nobody notice he is there. (The translation comes smoothly and nice). The interpreter is bad when he makes mistakes and/or makes everybody notice him. The Bible teaches us that the same is with God’s servants (pastors/shepherds/angels, etc). True servants of God serve the Lord. They make themselves unnoticeable to people, they never rob the Lord of His lordship and power and glory, they are very meek and humble and fearing the Lord. They just serve the Lord and do their best to bring people to the Lord and they speak the word of God, not their own inventions. They don’t want praise and worship, they want people praise and worship the Lord only. They are like good interpreters. But there are also bad interpreters and bad “servants of God” who actually are the servants of the Devil. The servants of the Devil want praise and worship from people and continually rob the Lord of his lordship and power and glory.

Let’s take some biblical examples. Once Peter the apostle came to a Roman officer Cornelius. “And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man” (Acts 10:25,26). Another similar event is described in Revelation 19:10. “And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy”. On the other side, the Devil said to Jesus, “All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine” (Lk.4:6,7).

Augustine wrote much on what is the difference between the servants of God and the servants of Devil, between the prophets and the false prophets, between the true angels of God and evil spirits. And he calls this attitude toward praise and worship the main difference by which we are able to know who is before us. So it doesn’t matter how “the servants” call themselves. What matters is how they serve the Lord.

Who is your Lord? Whom are you personally serving? Have you ever been deceived by a false “servant of God” in your life? Have you heard mostly what a servant of God would say or a servant of the Devil? Whom are you thankful for your salvation and the new life?

Evidence of Godly Sorrow

I seek evidence of godly sorrow. And yes, I have sought this in myself for many years. Here is part 1 of a 3-part series in which I present some thoughts on this sermon from the Prince of Preachers. Spurgeon has done much to correct my highly flawed theology, and this sermon in particular fills a gaping hole in the fabric of my mind.

Scripture

I highly recommend reading the Scripture text first: 2 Corinthians 7:5-13.

Spurgeon’s Introduction

Many years ago, and indeed in some measure to a later date, preachers of the Word seemed mainly to dwell upon the inner experience of men. They both preached sermons and wrote books in which they set forth the condition of convinced sinners, describing what they usually felt before they found peace with God. They were very strict in their search for the genuine tokens of true repentance, and the internal evidences of regeneration. They preached continually upon the work of the Spirit of God in convincing sinners of their lost condition; but they were not accustomed to say to them so baldly and so boldly as we do now, “Believe, and live;” and the consequence was, that a large number of truly awakened persons were kept in bondage, and did not come into the liberty wherewith Christ makes believers free, – at least, not so soon as they do nowadays. I believe that, under God’s blessing, those experimental preachers were the means of producing very sturdy Christians. They did a great deal of deep plowing, with a very sharp plowshare, before they began to sow the good seed of the kingdom. They took care to use the pointed needle of the law to make a way for the silken thread of the gospel, so that what they did sew was well sewn, and the garments which they made did not rend and tear quite so easily as much of the spiritual raiment does which is made in these days of more showy, but less substantial, labor.

Still, there was this defect about that style of preaching, it led men to look too much within instead of looking away from self to Christ. No matter how faithfully they proclaimed the grace of God, they preached some sort of preparation for the reception of that grace; and, therefore, sinners often looked to themselves to see whether they had that preparation rather than to the grace which it was most desirable that they should seek. I believe you may say so much about the disease of sin that, instead of leading the sinner in despair to turn his gaze to Christ, as the bitten Israelites looked to the brazen serpent as the only remedy, – you may merely make him sit down, and study the disease, and look, and look, and look again for the various symptoms you have described; and though he will be well acquainted with the disease, he will not in that way find a cure for it. You may dive as far as you like into the sea, but you will not find any fire there; you may rake as long as you please in the burning fiery furnace, but you will never reach any cooling blocks of ice; you may hunt, for many a day, in the human heart’s natural death, but you will not there discover any signs of life; and, within the charnel-house of man’s corruption, you shall never be able to discern any remedy for a sin-sick soul. It was in that particular that the experimental preaching lacked an important element.

But, now, times have changed, and very many of us, who are ministers of the gospel, do very plainly proclaim to sinners the message, “Believe, and live.” This plain declaration rings out from almost every part of our land, – not yet quite in every place, I would that it were so; but, still, there is a large company of Evangelical preachers continually repeating the apostolic message, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” I am sure that much good must result from this proclamation of the truth, for this is God’s ordained way of blessing the souls of men; and yet, – and yet, – I sometimes fear lest there should be all sowing and no plowing; – lest there should be the preaching only of the remedy, with almost an entire ignoring of the disease; – and lest the message “Believe, and live,” should take the place of that other great truth, “Ye must be born again.” It will never do for men to be led to think that they are healed before they know that they are sick unto death, or to imagine that they are clothed before they see themselves to be naked, or to be taught to trust Christ before they are aware that they have anything for which they have need to trust him. It would be a happy circumstance if, in our preaching, we could have a blending of these two elements, so that we could have somewhat of our forefathers’ deep experimental teaching, and with it, and growing out of it, a plain, unfettered delivery of the gospel declaration, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.”

“How are the two things to be reconciled?” someone asks. My dear brother, I have long ago given up trying to reconcile friends who never fell out. These two truths are both taught in Scripture, and therefore they cannot be at variance with one another. You would be as much puzzled to prove where they differ as I should be to show that they agree. I am confident that they do agree, because I find them both in the Book. Therefore, let them both be preached. Somehow, we are constantly coming across truths that lie side by side, like the metals on which the railway carriages run. If we only preach one of them, it will be like trying to run the train on a single rail. You know that there are often two truths, if not three, closely connected with one another. I am frequently led to see that there is a trinity of truths as there is a Trinity in the Godhead; and if they are all preached, in due proportion, they will balance one another, and prevent any one truth from being too prominent. Luther, with his free justification, by faith, is apt to go too far unless there shall come in Calvin and Zwingle, with their balancing truths, to set him right. Even Paul’s inspired words might have been the means of leading some men astray unless James had also been inspired to write on the practical side of truth so that Paul’s meaning should be the better understood. There is nothing wrong in the teaching of either Paul or James; they are both right, the two together bring out both aspects of truth.

(Source: Godly Sorrow and Sorrow, a sermon by Charles H. Spurgeon delivered on 9/9/1900)

1. Godly sorrow is not fear-driven. A certain amount of fear is healthy for us. But fear does not produce godly sorrow. In fact, the opposite is true: godly sorrow produces fear. Spurgeon speaks well to this in his first point: “Many are sorry for sin because of its temporal consequences; and many more because of its eternal consequences. They are afraid of hell. If there were no hell, they would like to continue to live in sin. They would be delighted if it could be proved that there is no God. Nothing would please them better than to have the law of the Lord and all its penal consequences abolished. They are as fond of sin as ever they were, but they sorrow because they see that it is bringing them down to the gulf of perdition. Now, that kind of sorrow is not repentance. A moth may burn its wings in the candle, and then, full of pain, fly back to the flame. There is no repentance in the moth, though there is pain; and so, there is no repentance in some men, though there is in them a measure of sorrow on account of their sin. Do not, therefore, make a mistake in this matter, and think that sorrow for sin is, or even necessarily leads to, repentance.”

2. Godly sorrow is not void of human sorrow. Repentance does indeed mean simply “a change of mind”. But what a total, complete change of mind! Godly sorrow is not the opposite of human sorrow and certainly not the absence of emotion. Here again Spurgeon shines: “Here is a man who says, “I repent.” But are you really sorry that you sinned? “No,” he replies. Then, my dear sir, you cannot have truly repented; for a man, who has not got even so far as repentance, is often sorry for having done wrong. When a man is convinced that he has transgressed against God he ought to be sorry; and if you tell me that there can be such a thing as Spiritual repentance, and yet no sorrow for having broken the law of God, I tell you that you do not know what you are talking about.”

3. Godly sorrow is not self-loathing. Some take godly sorrow too far, saying we must see ourselves the “worst of sinners”. But is this what God intended for his “new wine” creations? A realistic review of history, filled with tyrants and mass killers should quickly enlighten us that we are not the worst of sinners. Spurgeon corrects this thinking well: “There are some persons who seem to think that we must reach a certain point of wretchedness, or else we are not truly penitent. They imagine that we must grieve up to a certain point of temperature, or we cannot be saved; and they watch the convicted sinner to see when he gets near to what they consider to be a sufficient measure of brokenness of heart….   ….I will not waste time by dwelling upon it, because it is altogether a baseless supposition. We admit that many, who come to Christ, have passed through very great terror and agony before doing so; but a large part of their suffering was the work of the devil, and not the work of the Spirit of God at all. A great part of it might have been spared if they had not been so ignorant, and a still larger part of it they might never have suffered if they had heard the gospel preached with greater simplicity, and had not been muddled and handled so roughly by some who put their own experience into the place of the Savior After all, we are not saved by any feelings or alarms that we may have.”

4. Godly sorrow is not a once-in-a-lifetime experience. Some may get the meaning of godly sorrow, but err on the side of experience, claiming you only experience godly sorrow once. Scripture upon Scripture, and life itself, should readily expose the fallacy of this thinking. Spurgeon dismissed this idea: “Then, again, there is another mistake made by many, – that this sorrow for sin only happens once, – as a sort of squall, or a hurricane, or thunderstorm, that breaks over a man once, and then he is converted, and he talks about that experience all the rest of his life, but he has nothing more to do with it. Why, dear friends, there is nothing more erroneous than that.”

5. Godly sorrow is not a miserable feeling. When we hear the word sorrow, we are often turned off immediately. Is it more godly to walk around with a sour face all the time? Spurgeon corrects this too: “I want also to correct another mistake, namely, that sorrow for sin is a miserable feeling. The moment the word “sorrow” is mentioned, many people suppose that it must necessarily be grief of a bitter kind. Ah! but there is a sweet sorrow, a healthy sorrow. In honey, there is a sweetness that cloys after awhile. We may eat too much of it, and make ourselves ill; but in repentance there is a bitter sweetness, or a sweet bitterness, – which shall I call it? – of which, the more you have, the better it is for you.”

Spurgeon’s Questions

In this first part, I leave you with Spurgeon’s own questions which convict and pierce the soul:

“What have you been doing that is wrong, brother? Are the consolations of God small with thee? Is there any secret sin that is keeping thee sad and sorrowful? Shall I help you to find out the source of the evil? Have you been neglecting the reading of the Word? Have you been lax in private prayer of late? Have you been getting covetous? As you have grown richer, have you grown tighter in the fist? Have you been getting more worldly? Do you speak less about Christ than you used to do, and more about vanity? Have you been mixing up in bad company? Have you been entangled by a so-called friend who is no help to you, but who really hinders you greatly in spiritual things? Have you been forming some associations that you know Christ does not approve of? Have you been letting things go a little amiss in your business, – only a little amiss?”

Three “Not so with you” Questions

The first lesson was “Biblical Foundations”, and set the tone for the nine months with three questions. It was emphasized that these are not merely questions for new believers, but questions meant for leaders in the church, and questions Christians must continually ask along their journey. And the other emphasis was that Christ-followers have distinctive answers, approaches and questions related to these questions:

1. Who is God?
2. Who am I?
3. What does God want to do through me?

Jesus’ Words

Here is the “not so with you” text from Matthew 20:20-28.

20 Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came up to him with her sons, and kneeling before him she asked him for something. 21 And he said to her, “What do you want?” She said to him, “Say that these two sons of mine are to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.” 22 Jesus answered, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink?” They said to him, “We are able.” 23 He said to them, “You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.” 24 And when the ten heard it, they were indignant at the two brothers. 25 But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 26 It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant,[c] 27 and whoever would be first among you must be your slave,[d] 28 even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Impact on my life

This nine month study has deeply impacted my life. My approach to the bible, my life, my God, my community and my family has all been changed. I want the “not so with you” and other distinctive marks of being a Christ-follower to permeate my life. Here are just a few ways this study and the people in it have have impacted my life:

• I feel like a human being.
• I am no longer afraid to be myself
• I am free to explore God’s unique mission for my life
• I will pay attention to my family first
• I have a new desire for seminary
• I am free to be emotional
• I am equipped with some ways to listen to the Holy Spirit
• I know something about my strengths and my unique gifts from God

An Example: Pope Francis

When I think about the “not so with you” attitude we learned from the study, I immediately thought of Pope Francis. He is becoming known as the “pope of firsts“.  He embodies the “not so with you” attitude of Jesus quite well. I am glad to see such a refreshing ambassador of the Body of Christ.

Here are just some of the impressive actions Pope Francis has taken to spark a new, distinctive era of reform in the Catholic Church, and in my opinion, in all of Christianity.

· After his election, he came down from platform to greet the cardinal electors, rather than have them come up to his level to offer obedience.
· He appeared on the loggia without the red cape.
· In his greeting he referred to himself only as “bishop,” not as “pope.”
· He referred to Benedict as “bishop emeritus,” not “pope emeritus.”
· He appeared without the stole, only putting it on to give the blessing. He then took it off in public (!), as if he couldn’t wait to get it off.
· He asked for the people’s blessing before he blessed them.
· He doesn’t wear red shoes.
· Though he has taken possession of the apostolic palace, he continued to receive guests at St. Martha’s House rather than the palace.
· He drank Argentinian tea in public when receiving the Argentinian president – protocol is that popes are seen publicly consuming no food or drink except the Eucharist.
· His first Mass with cardinals was celebrated facing the people.
· He doesn’t chant the prayers, he recites them – but this could be because of an impaired lung or his singing ability.

(source)

Some follow-up questions:

– How can your life display the “not so with you” attitude?

– What do you think about Pope Francis?

– How might Jesus’ words “not so with you” begin to transform the fabric of ubf?

Is insufficient grace the reason people leave? Perhaps a major reason for problems in UBF have to do with a misunderstanding of grace, which has led to unchecked authoritarianism in UBF for the last 50 years and counting. What do I mean?

My thesis is that grace is the predominant expression of the love of God toward his sinful people both in the OT and the NT. Without being exhaustive, the entire sacrificial system of blood offerings in the tabernacle and the temple in the OT reveals the grace of God. The sacrifice of a lamb allows sinful undeserving people who should be condemned to have access to a holy God. This is grace. In the NT, Jesus became the ultimate Lamb of God who now extends grace to all undeserving sinners to come to God through his sacrifice. This is grace.

Even Christians prefer to punish others rather than extend grace to them. But by default, sinners, even Christians, spontaneously and naturally misunderstand, misapply and reject what God does, including extending grace to sinners. Jonah was very very angry with God because God extended grace to the Ninevites, whom Jonah felt should be judged and destroyed for their sins. And Jonah was a prophet of God!

We Christians may not like grace. Every action of Christ from his incarnation to his resurrection and ascension reveals the grace of God. The parable of the workers in the field still offends Christians today, especially those who think they started work at 6 am and have worked for 12 hours. They especially despise those who start work at 5 pm and worked just 1 hour, and yet receive the exact same pay of grace! How can one who just worked 1 hour receive the exact same blessing as one who worked 12 hours?? This is grace.

The classic Parable of the Prodigal Son is nothing but a story of exuding grace—to both sons. By the father’s grace alone, he went out to both his undeserving sons–to the younger as he was returning after a life of debauchery, as well as to the older son as he was grumbling angrily because he did not like grace extended to his undeserving brother!

Jesus was killed because he extended grace to sinners. A primary reason the “Christians” (Pharisees) killed Jesus was because he extended grace to the people who, in their mind, should never receive them–the prostitutes, tax collectors, and despicable sinners–unlike them!

Christian leaders opposed Paul because of his emphasis on grace. The parable of the unmerciful servant shows that all men simply love to receive grace, while are completely blind to extending grace to others. The entire book of Romans and Galatians shows Paul defending grace to “Christian leaders,” who are irate at Paul’s teaching of grace. They are totally convinced that grace is not enough for the Christian church. Why? Because people need some training, especially obedience training based on the Law!

Accepting grace in theory but denying it in practice. Let me conclude with a quote from Brennan Manning, who died recently: “Put bluntly, the (American) church today accepts grace in theory but denies it in practice. We say we believe that the fundamental structure of reality is grace, not works–but our lives refute our faith. By and large, the gospel of grace is neither proclaimed, understood, nor lived. Too many Christians are living in a house of fear and not in the house of love.”

Is UBF scared of grace? Of both teaching and extending grace? Especially, is UBF afraid of teaching and extending grace to young(er) people thinking that grace will only make them useless and undisciplined? Does a misunderstanding of grace prevent old(er) leaders who are authoritarian to come clean?

It is more blessed to give than to receive.

Acts 20:35 says, “In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’ ” This principle was beautifully illustrated by God’s people in UBF. I was the joyful recipient of many generous gifts: gifts of people diligently praying for me; gifts of my pastor personally taking time to teach me God’s word for hours each week; gifts of delicious meals; and also thoughtful—and frequently unexpected—presents (“Underwear? Oh, um, thanks!”)

When I was struggling and in the darkest days of shame and despair, my pastor gave his home for me to live with his family for several months. When I was struggling to support my young family as a student, he and others gave generous gifts to supply our need. Through each gift, prayer, Bible study, and encouragement, this message clearly resounded: giving is a blessing. The surpassing blessedness of giving became evident. I saw the blessedness of living a life of giving. Upon leaving UBF and watching other Christians in other churches, I began to appreciate this lesson as I saw that not all Christians have so joyfully learned this lesson. I’m thankful that through the giving hearts of the generous people in UBF, God helped to learn joy and blessedness of giving.

Being regimented is different than being disciplined

In UBF, I tried my best to faithfully attend devotions and prayer at 6 am. I did my best to faithfully reflect and write a testimony on each Sunday passage, evangelize on campus, prepare and teach the Bible to my Bible students, attend the required meetings, and attend and serve the Sunday service. It seemed that I was very disciplined and devoted in my spiritual life. However, after leaving UBF—after I was no longer required to attend meetings, serve students, write testimonies, and go fishing—I almost completely stopped reading my Bible or spending time in prayer. To my surprise, I wasn’t so disciplined after all!

I have come to realize that, in actual fact, I was regimented, not disciplined. I had responded well to externally-imposed regiments like devotions, testimony-writing, and Bible study, but I had not actually become disciplined in my inner person. Indeed, perhaps it was because I was so regimented that my true undisciplined self was able to remain hidden. Were the externally-imposed things such as daily bread and Bible study wrong or bad? By all means no, and truly they helped me a great deal. But while helping me, these things also hindered me from seeing the true condition of my personal relationship with Jesus. And most dangerously, they oh-so-subtly and implicitly planted the notion that by continuing to do these things—and lo, by doing them more and more—my inner person will somehow be changed.

What truths have you learned?

True righteousness and holiness

Look at what Paul wrote to the Ephesians. Eph 4:22-24 “that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, (23) and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, (24) and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness.” Notice the phrase true righteousness and holiness. In order for Paul to speak of true righteousness and holiness… he must have been aware of false righteousness and holiness.

If there is anything lacking in Christianity today, it is real… true… transformation. Real, true transformation is genuine spiritual transformation brought about by a deep abiding faith in redemption. Current evangelical doctrine causes this transformation to be still born before it can ever take a hold. The reason is that most evangelical assemblies demand “read and do” obedience. “Read and do” obedience is fleshly obedience. The current way that evangelicals are taught about transformation motivates fleshly reformation rather than spiritual transformation. Look at the two words and compare and contrast them. Reformation is the act of one reforming themselves and is primarily a fleshly endeavor. Transformation happens as the result of an outside force. In the disciple of Christ, the outside transforming force, is the radical love of God manifested in the gospel of grace. The gospel is the only thing that will bring about true transformation.

When Paul penned the words “and be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind” what did he mean? Renew the mind to what? The answer… renew the mind to the gospel! Renew the mind to the mercies of God. How then does this work? How is it transformative? Well, quite frankly it is simple when you think about it. When one focuses on God’s mercy, love and grace… especially in view of humanities great need… it actually causes one to love God very deeply. It produces peace from the realization and experience of forgiveness. This love and peace operates to cause us to feel closer to God. We acknowledge our connection to God via the indwelling Holy Spirit. This is precisely the way that we begin to participate in the divine nature. Participation in the divine nature is the source of transformation… real transformation.

Unfortunately, far too many saints are caught up in reformation… trying desperately to meet the standards set up by other saints and their particular denomination and leaders. This effort is 99% fleshly and this causes spiritual burn out and anger. It seems to me that so many saints end up being judgmental and very angry. They lack the life of Jesus in their day to day demeanor. Again, the reason is that they can only be *truly transformed* by their faith in the gospel. It never changes. We cannot outgrow this. It is not a one time thing. We did not get saved spiritually and then begin to reform ourselves by self effort after reading the scripture over and over again. Instead, we must realize God’s mercy and grace… really experience it over and over to have love consistently produced in us. God’s love for us is the transformer. It transforms us into loving people.

Here is where the body of Christ becomes important. When we meet it should be to reinforce the knowledge of God’s love and grace. That’s why Paul was determined to not do anything except preach the gospel. Yes, “Jesus Christ and him crucified” is another way of Paul saying I determine to teach and preach nothing but the gospel. We will look deeper into this transformation process over the next few posts.

Exploring the righteousness of God

Take another look at Ephesians 4:22-24 “that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, (23) and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, (24) and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness.” Notice the phrase true righteousness and holiness. In order for Paul to speak of true righteousness and holiness… he must have been aware of false righteousness and holiness.

True righteousness is the righteousness of God or, more accurately stated, it is imputed or accredited righteousness. One of the interpretative rules for understanding the scripture is called the rule of first mention. This rule is especially instructive with the term righteousness. The first mention of the word righteousness in the bible is found in Gen 15:6 “And he believed in the LORD, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.” Here we see that God accredits, accounts, imputes righteousness to people who believe what he tells them. God made a promise to Abraham. Abraham believed God’s promise. God then, accredited righteousness to Abraham based upon his faith in God. Imputed righteousness is very important in true transformation and true holiness. Imputed righteousness is the foundation of our trust in God.

Paul said this about Israel; Romans 10:1-4 Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved. (2) For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. (3) For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. (4) For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. Israel was ignorant of the way God declared Abraham righteous. Being ignorant of God’s righteousness is in reality, not understanding imputed righteousness. Seeking to establish one’s own righteousness is practicing self-righteousness.

I could say what Paul said about his fellow Jews today about most of evangelical Christianity. I wish that they could be saved; I wish they could rest in God’s righteousness… His righteous provision. I wish that they would rest in the righteousness of God. If they would trust in imputed righteousness it would make them truly love God with an incredible, indescribable love. This love would then be spread abroad to others. Any obedience, any good works, any brotherly love would be the result of spiritual transformation brought about by believing in God’s love. The saint, resting in imputed righteousness is set free, given peace that translates into love works that are the result of faith.

The world needs to see Jesus

It is not that God does not desire transformation in his children. He most definitely does and, he has provided for that transformation in the gospel. One must believe the gospel no matter what…. no matter what one sees in fleshly behavior on any given day or at any give period of time. Transformation is a process that *will* happen over time if faith in the gospel remains all the time. Resting in and trusting in imputed righteousness is the foundation of transformation. If the world needs to see anything in these times it is the love of Jesus being manifested in transformed saints that exhibit true righteousness and holiness.

Check out Joe’s blog for many more insightful articles: www.paradigmshift-jmac.blogspot.com

Why able and capable young leader’s leave

In judging fairly who the person is should not matter. In my sermon on Deuteronomy chapter 1, The Words Moses Spoke, Moses also taught us that good leaders MUST judge fairly without partiality (Deut 1:16-18). This means that a good leader’s judgment should not be affected by any consideration other than the truth. Practically, it should not matter in the least if one person is an Israelite and the other is a foreigner (Deut 1:16). Ajith Fernando writes eloquently:

“Applying this to the life of the church or nation today, it would mean that sometimes a judgment may be made against a loyal member for the benefit of an outsider. In our cultures there is a strong sense of community solidarity that goes to the extreme of protecting one’s own when outsiders are involved. To do otherwise is considered an act of disloyalty and betrayal. But Moses instructs the judges to judge against members of their own group if necessary.”

“Pronouncing judgment against one’s own and in favor of an outsider is very hard for leaders as sometimes it looks like ingratitude and disloyalty to one who has worked so loyally and hard. But though there will be hurt at first, in the long run such thoroughgoing commitment to justice will reap good results.”

In judging fairly favoritism and partiality should not be shown to the one with status. Good and fair judgements must also treat the small and the great alike (Deut 1:17a). Sadly, in many societies and in some churches too, people with influence are considered to be above the law or immune to prosecution. But showing favoritism or partiality in judgment toward anyone, regardless of who they are or what they have done, will invariably result in a sick nation or a sick church, because it blurs the fact that God is always fair and just (Gen 18:19, 25; Prov 31:9). Therefore, a good leader fears no one but God (Deut 1:17b; Prov 29:25; Mt 10:28).

Have you experienced fairness and justice when judgments were made by your leaders?

Does UBF teach an effort driven sanctification?

UBF is not incorrect. UBF is correct in acknowledging that sanctification is God’s work (Phil 2:13). UBF is also correct in teaching that a Christian must work out their sanctification (Phil 2:12b). The problem that I take issue with is that the emphasis and take home message is the latter, while the former is either assumed or glossed over and not clearly explained or emphasized.

Why does UBF (over)emphasize man’s work in sanctification? Perhaps, I understand why UBF does this. The thinking may be that if UBF emphasizes that sanctification is God’s work, then UBF people will become “do nothing” Christians. UBF fears that UBF Christians will not do anything until God does something. That is a legitimate concern. Sadly, churches may be filled with such Christians who are just warming the pews waiting for God to work. This is hypercalvinism. The book of James addresses Christians who have become complacent and are “not doing anything” because they believe that their faith has already saved them.

The sad results of teaching a man/effort driven sanctification. There is a down side to emphasizing sanctification as being what a Christian must do. It produces subtly smug Christians who base their self worth on their effort, hard work, good intentions and sacrifice for the church. It produces Pharisees. It produces “older brothers” who think they deserve or have earned their father’s goat or calf (Lk 15:29). It produces a deadly legalism that kills the life of the entire church. Paul wrote Romans (his magnum opus) and Galatians (his first of 13 epistles) to combat this prevalent wrong teaching that grace alone is not enough.

What can UBF do? Here is a feeble attempt to put God as being the primary force in sanctification. Let me also answer with an excellent quote from the renowned theologian Louis Berkhof (1873-1957) who says that sanctification is God’s work and not man’s work, even though man works in grace following God’s work in the Christian:

“Sanctification is a work of the triune God, but is ascribed more particularly to the Holy Spirit in Scripture (Rom 8:11, 15:16; 1 Pet 1:2). It is particularly important in our day, with its emphasis on the necessity of approaching the study of theology anthropologically and its one-sided call to service in the kingdom of God, to stress the fact that God, and not man, is the author of sanctification. Especially in view of the Activism that is such a characteristic feature of American religious life, and which glorifies the work of man rather than the grace of God, it is necessary to stress the fact over and over again that sanctification is the fruit of justification, that the former is simply impossible without the latter, and that both are the fruits of the grace of God in the redemption of sinners. Though man is privileged to cooperate with the Spirit of God, he can do this only in virtue of the strength which the Spirit imparts to him from day to day. The spiritual development of man is not a human achievement, but a work of divine grace. Man deserves no credit whatsoever for that which he contributes to it instrumentally.”

Am I describing fairly how UBF has taught sanctification?

Last year during a blogging discussion with various people, I had someone tell me: “The bible says it, and so I believe it. End of story.” Such an attitude left the person in an odd situation. Her own words contradicted her beliefs because she failed to reason through the topic at hand. As I continue through my paradigm-shifting transformation, this notion of the “bible alone” has struck a deep chord with me.

Is the bible sufficient for every facet of life? What role do traditions, organizations and other inspirations play in the life of a Christian? Who is it who guides us into all truth?

While I firmly believe we Christians do need to check our doctrines against the bible, I’ve found that how we do that checking is of utmost importance. And furthermore, I’ve found a vast treasure of insight among resources outside the bible.

In this short article I present three talking points to encourage a discussion about the bible-alone mentality. The bible is indeed my checkpoint. But I will no longer elevate the bible to be the fourth member of the Trinity, as I did in the past!

A. Is the bible God’s material word for every situation?

Some people claim the bible is God’s material word, the always pertinent and necessary wisdom, for all situations. The thought is that the bible has God’s final answers on all matters of life. And when God is silent on a matter, we should be too. Let’s examine this thinking in light of the life issue of slavery in America and Britain and the related abolitionist movements around 1800.

Naturally, a Christian in 1800 would want to know what the bible has to say about slavery. If we think that the bible is God’s pertinent and necessary word for every life matter, we find a rather strong case for keeping the slavery system going. Consider the following.

Exodus 21:1-3 allows buying servants:

1 “These are the laws you are to set before them:  2 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything.  3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him.

Exodus 21:20-21 says that slaves are property and can be beaten:

20 “If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished,  21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

Ephesians 6:5-6 continues to promote slavery:

5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.  6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.

There are many more verses, but you get the point. If you think that abolishing slavery is a simple matter, consider how some great men of faith viewed the issue.

“Slavery among men is natural, for some are naturally slaves according to the Philosopher (Polit. i, 2). Now ‘slavery belongs to the right of nations,’ as Isidore states (Etym. v, 4). Therefore the right of nations is a natural right.”  Source: Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, “On Justice”

“Masters contribute greater benefits to their servants than servants to their masters. For the former furnish the money to purchase for them sufficient food and clothing, and bestow much care upon them in other respects, so that the masters pay them the larger service … they suffer much toil and trouble for your repose, ought they not in return to receive much honor from you, their servants?”  Source: St. John Chrysostom, “Homily 16 on 1 Timothy,” quoted in Philip Schaff, Saint Chrysostom and Saint Augustin (New York: Whittaker Press,1889), p. 465.

 

Slavery was also viewed as a natural law or way of humanity by several councils.

“Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons. … It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given.  The purchaser should carefully examine whether the slave who is put up for sale has been justly or unjustly deprived of his liberty, and that the vendor should do nothing which might endanger the life, virtue, or Catholic faith of the slave.”  Source: Instruction 20, The Holy Office (Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), June 20, 1866.

“Indeed, the deeds of superiors are not to be smitten with the sword of the mouth, even when they are rightly thought to be deserving of reproof. And if sometimes the tongue in criticism of them slips in the least degree, the heart must be overwhelmed with penitential grief. It should reflect upon itself, and when it has offended the power set over it, it should dread the judgment passed against it by Him who appointed superiors. For when we offend those set over us, we oppose the ordinance of Him who set them above us.”  Source: Pope Gregory I, ca. 540-604 C.E., quoted in Henry Davis, Pastoral Care; Ancient Christian Writers Series, no.11, (Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1950), p. 100.

Questions for discussion:

1. How could we avoid the pitfalls of those who have gone before us?
2. Should we Christians re-enable the owning of slaves?

B. How will the Holy Spirit guide us into all truth?

Here is another example. Let’s say you are reading the bible in your morning devotions one day. You come across Psalm 33:1-4

1 Sing joyfully to the LORD, you righteous; it is fitting for the upright to praise him.  2 Praise the LORD with the harp; make music to him on the ten-stringed lyre.  3 Sing to him a new song; play skillfully, and shout for joy.  4 For the word of the LORD is right and true; he is faithful in all he does.

Verse 2 contains a command, a specific command, two commands even. “Praise the Lord with the harp; make music to him on the ten-stringed lyre.” If this word of God is right and true, how do you respond?

Are we to be laden with guilt because we’ve never even seen a 10-stringed lyre? What is lyre anyway? And when do we play? Every morning? Each night? God’s command is pretty specific here. We must use a 10-stringed lyre, not 6 strings, not 3 strings but 10 strings.

Before you cast off this example as irrelevant, consider how many arguments have arisen over the style of worship music over the years.

Questions for discussion:

1. What role does the Holy Spirit have as our guide into all truth?
2. How do we obey the commands we discover in the bible?

C. Will we stand before God with flawed doctrine?

And now for my favorite example: fig newtons. Let’s say you want to please God in all things, which includes your new diet plan. You absolutely love fig newtons. You want to include them on your new diet plan because of the health benefits of figs, and you also want to add several recipes involving figs to your menu.

But there is a problem. Your friend happened to jokingly mention that Jesus cursed the fig tree. You laughed it off, but secretly at home you scour the internet and your bible to find out if God will be upset if you eat figs. Shockingly, you find the following.

Mark 11:14 says that Jesus did indeed curse the fig tree.

“14 Then he said to the tree, ‘May no one ever eat fruit from you again.’ And his disciples heard him say it.”

Matthew 21:18-20 makes it clear Jesus hates figs.

“18 Early in the morning, as he was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. 19 Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it,“May you never bear fruit again!” Immediately the tree withered. 20 When the disciples saw this, they were amazed. “How did the fig tree wither so quickly?” they asked.”

To your horror, you then discover that the Old Testament condemns fig trees as well! Not just one tree, but all of them. The trajectory of Scripture is against figs.

Jeremiah 29:17 says figs are to be used as an example of judgment.

“17 yes, this is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will send the sword, famine and plague against them and I will make them like poor figs that are so bad they cannot be eaten.'”

Hosea 2:12 says that God will destroy fig trees because of impurity.

“12 I will ruin her vines and her fig trees,
which she said were her pay from her lovers;
I will make them a thicket,
and wild animals will devour them.”

Here’s something to consider: You and I will both stand before God on Judgment Day with flawed doctrines (my doctrine will be more flawed than yours, but hey those are the breaks I guess :)

Questions for discussion:

1. What, if anything, is wrong with my fig tree teachings?
2. If we will all end up with flawed doctrines, how might we live now?

How did I teach Joseph? I emphasized the goodness of Joseph and the evilness of his brothers and that Joseph was pure, innocent and naive, which is all true to a degree; that Joseph had dreams, while his brothers had jealously and evil schemes; that Joseph faithfully carried out his father’s errands, unlike his irresponsible brothers. In brief, Joseph was good and his brothers were bad. Therefore, be like Joseph, have dreams, and live responsibly. Also, don’t be like Joseph’s brothers, who had no dreams, and who were filled with murderous jealousy.

What’s “wrong” with teaching Joseph this way? It does not make Joseph out to be a sinner, who desperately needs God’s mercy, grace and deliverance just like everyone else. It is as though Joseph had no real sins, and just some mild innocent naivete, and that he was simply better and a cut above others. It creates a false dichotomy as though Joseph’s brothers needed salvation more than Joseph himself. It could cause people to think that we can just be better like Joseph and not become like his evil brothers by our own resolve.

How should we teach Joseph? A key is in Gen 37:2, which says, “he (Joseph) brought his father a bad report about them.” I taught this as Joseph being a good steward who simply reported the bad things that his bad brothers did. Is this correct? The Hebrew word for “report” (dibbah) denotes news slanted to damage the victim. It suggests that Joseph exaggerates the bad things his brothers did. Dibbah or “tales” is always used in a negative sense of an untrue report. It indicates that what Joseph did was to misrepresent his brothers to his father. Thus, what the author of Genesis is communicating about Joseph is not his innocence and naivete, but that Joseph is quite an unlikable character: he is immature, tattles on his brothers, and exaggerates their flaws. In short, the narrator sketches the young Joseph as a fool: he is unwise. Joseph acts in similar foolish fashion in telling his two dreams of his own exaltation, and thus infuriating his brothers to the point of murderous jealousy. {Greidanus, Sidney, Preaching Christ from Genesis. Chap. 18. Joseph’s Sale into Slavery (Gen 37:2-36). Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmas Publishing Co. 2007, 335-356.}

What is the difference in these two ways of teaching Joseph? Teaching Joseph in the former way communicates that some people like Joseph (and perhaps ourselves) are better than some other people who are like Joseph’s evil, jealous and malicious brothers. We Christians know that this is not true (Rom 3:9-11,23). When I taught Joseph as though he is good, pure, naive, and innocent, I did not show how Joseph himself needed the gospel of salvation. But teaching Joseph in this latter way as a foolish brat and a self-centered tattle tale leads us to understand how Joseph (and ourselves) urgently and desperately need Jesus and the gospel.

I am not saying that everyone in UBF teaches Joseph the way I did. But is this “adjustment” helpful and/or necessary in the way Joseph is taught?

How happy we will ALWAYS be when are acutely aware of “the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy,” and when we “fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes.”

Lincoln’s words expose my sins, which are to deal with anger with the sins of others, rather than extending mercy toward them, and to be quite impatient, forgetting that the Divine purposes are different, if not opposed, to my own expectations.

Happy Thanksgiving to all friends (even foes!) of UBFriends.

Saved by Grace; Function by Law

Asking the Law to do what only Grace can do. It is quite interesting what Paul Tripp said in Extend The Same Grace You Preach: “I knew (grace) well and could articulate them clearly, but at ground level something else was going on. In the duties, processes, and relationships of pastoral ministry I actively devalued the same grace I theologically defended. My ministry lacked rest in grace. So I attempted to do in people what only God can do, and I consistently asked the law to do what only divine grace will ever accomplish.”

We think we keep the Law; we correct others by the Law. Why do we do this? “The heart of every believer, still being delivered from sin, (gravitates toward) some form of legalism. Even after we’ve been saved by grace, we think ourselves to be keeping the law. So we bring the law to law breakers, hoping they will see the error of their ways and (improve). No one preaches the law more than one who thinks he’s keeping it. The temptation to revert to legalism greets us all.”

We control and manage others. “When you devalue this grace, you think it is your job as a pastor to manage people’s lives. You simply become too present in their lives and too controlling of their thinking and decisions. Your ministry begins to migrate from being focused on telling people what God has done for them to being dominated by telling people what to do.”

We expect behavioral and cultural uniformity and conformity. “Maturity in the body of Christ is never the fruit of such (Law based) pastoring. No, the fruit is behavioral and cultural uniformity masquerading as maturity. Only when a pastor rests in the grace of the indwelling Holy Spirit is he freed from managing people’s lives.”

Law emphasizes church programs that others are expected to participate in. “You emphasize formal programmatic ministry while neglecting the call to informal member-to-member ministry. The fruit of this is a passive (dependent) congregation, who thinks ministry is never official unless a pastor (announces it), who thinks of ministry as a weekly schedule of meetings led by the pastoral staff. When a pastor holds a theology of grace but functionally devalues God’s grace in the life of the believer, he will be too present and controlling in ministry, and the fruit of his ministry will be uniformity and passivity (dependency) in the body of Christ. Again and again our self-righteous hearts migrate toward ministry legalism and control.”

Do you functionally operate by the Law? Do you extend Grace or Law to others?

These days I have been increasing my reading to help answer such questions. I took a friend’s suggestion to read “What We Believe And Why” by George Byron Koch. The first point in the book is that we should differentiate between essentials and non-essentials of our Christian faith.

I would hope all Christians would agree that the gospel of Jesus is an essential. I believe the gospel is the one great, unifying rally cry that should permeate our lives. In my mind, the gospel is so essential that over the past three years I have been rebuilding my entire theology, bibliology, christology, pneumatology, cosmology, hamartiology, soteriology, ecclesiology and eschatology all on the gospel. I have thrown out all my beliefs and will accept no belief unless it stems from the gospel. I am defining my faith based on an articulated defense of the gospel of Jesus.

Remember Jesus Christ. From a Biblical standpoint, we don’t have to look very far in the text to find the clear definition of the gospel: “Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel, for which I am suffering even to the point of being chained like a criminal. But God’s word is not chained”  (2 Tim 2:8-9).

A more common, more detailed version is 1 Cor 15:1-5: “1 Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. 3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. ”

Clearly the gospel of Jesus stands on two pillars: 1. Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets. 2. Jesus died but came back to life. So in my mind, the basic articulation of the gospel (the “good news”) of Jesus Christ is this: Jesus is the promised Christ who fulfilled the Law and the Prophets through his birth, life, death, resurrection and ascension.

Forgiveness, not condemnation. I love the titles of Koch’s sections in his book. In the one entitled “Being Sanctified is not Forcing Correct Behavior on Others”, he writes (Kindle edition, location 1796, Chapter 7: Living With Unbelievers):

“I have seen people brought to tears by the forgiveness of God, who came to the altar in surrender, and who shared there the struggles that had brought them to the church and to the altar. Instead of being welcomed, they were told how terrible their sin was. The accuser had his theology straight but lacked love. The point of the Gospel is forgiveness, not condemnation. It is out of the soil of forgiveness that holiness grows, not out of the venom of condemnation.”

The “gospel of” statements. If the Bible declares the gospel, then certainly the Bible must define the gospel? Yes, I believe it does. I found numerous verses that explain the meaning of the gospel. What does it mean that Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets, died and rose to life according to the Scriptures?

Here is what Scripture says the gospel is about…

• It’s about Jesus

“The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (Mk 1:1).

• It’s about the kingdom

“And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come” (Mt 24:14).

• It’s about God’s grace

“However, I consider my life worth nothing to me, if only I may finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me–the task of testifying to the gospel of God’s grace” (Acts 20:24).

• It’s about the glory of Christ

“The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God” (2 Cor 4:4).

• It’s about salvation

“And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit…” (Eph 1:13).

• It’s about peace

“…and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace” (Eph 6:15).

Questions to initiate the dialog:

1. How would you articulate the gospel in 7 words or less?
2. What is essential to understanding the gospel?
3. What are the effects of the gospel on a person or community?

I reassessed what I had been doing. I decided to stop writing testimonies, to not attend weekly meetings and yearly conferences, to regularly visit my aged mother in Malaysia, to stop “message training,” to allow responsible dating among single Christians, to resign as an elder after 20 years, and to freely and respectfully voice my objection or disagreement (agreeably and prayerfully) when I do not agree with others. This upset some people. But I was and I am free in Christ to do so with the fear of God in my heart (Prov 1:7, 9:10), and without dishonoring God or the Bible or Christianity.

For the record, I am a Christian and a fully committed UBF member. I have not counted, but I have likely offered over a million to this ministry by virtue of being a physician. This is not a bragging right, nor a credit to me, because it is purely and entirely God’s grace to me. Because of UBF’s influence I love the Bible to this day, along with preaching, Bible teaching, mentoring others, raising leaders, and church planting. My entire Christian life and experience has been shaped by UBF for 32 years and counting. I am also not against the things I stopped doing. I have never discouraged others to not write testimonies, or to not attend UBF conferences, or to not marry by faith. (But I have expressed to many that “message training” makes our UBF messengers weird, because some no longer sound like themselves when they preach.) For the sake of my own sanity, I had to rediscover the freedom that I know I have in Christ.

Freedom  attracts non-Christians. Non-Christians are not free because they are enslaved by violence, video games and voyeurism, by porno, partying and playing around. But after becoming Christians we can also quite easily become enslaved. Historically, Christians become enslaved to their own religious traditions and methodologies, as though their religious habits give them an advantage or a superior status over others. Such “Christian” enslavement causes us to become more like Pharisees than like Jesus. Why do prostitutes flock to Jesus, but not to the Pharisees? Might this be a reason why prostitutes do not flock to many of our Christian churches today?

Freedom is not easy. The first week I stopped writing testimonies, I felt as though the ground would open up and swallow me alive for sinning greatly against God. Then I asked myself, “Will God love/bless me more if I write? Am I sinning and grieving God by not writing?” The answer was obvious. Still it was terribly hard to deny myself and not write!! I have always loved to share stories and testimonies. I am just no longer doing so by writing testimonies. Instead, I blog!

Is freedom dangerous? Absolutely! Christians abusing their freedom surely happens. But does it mean that we should be afraid of freedom and no longer teach it, proclaim it, declare it, and shout it from the rooftops?

Fear of freedom? Correct me if I’m wrong, but we Christians are often afraid of teaching freedom, as we are of teaching grace. We think that if we really teach freedom and grace, then young Christians will just live as they want. They won’t come to church. They won’t go to conferences. They won’t study the Bible. They won’t evangelize others. They won’t marry by faith. Etc. I beg to strongly disagree.

Legalism or liberty? Whenever we enforce anything, even good Christian habits, we promote legalism rather than liberty. Perhaps without being aware of it, we do not really give young Christians the freedom of choice. We guilt trip them if they don’t want to come to a conference, or marry someone we recommend to them. We know we should not do this. Yet it has happened often enough. It is only when we truly proclaim freedom, including freedom not to do what we do in UBF, that the Christian life is the most attractive and appealing life in the world.

Are you truly free in Christ?

• Belief and Behavior.
• Creed and Conduct.
• Doctrine and Duty.

Necessarily, the first always precedes the second, or the second always follows the first. Through Bible study, our behavior follows our belief, our conduct follows our creed, and our duty follows our doctrine, and not the other way around.

Freedom and rest. Tit 3:8 says, “…those who have trusted in God may be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good.” When we trust God, we do what is good. When we truly believe, we behave. Those who know the grace of God are eager to do what is good (Tit 2:11,14). The Christian life is not one where we have to squeeze goodness out of reluctant people. Rather, it is a life that is joyfully lived out when the gospel is preached and taught. It is truly a life of freedom (2 Cor 3:17; Gal 5:1) and rest for our souls (Mt 11:29).

Bible study should proclaim, teach and emphasize the first BCD, because the second BCD follows the first.

What about me? My confession is that for over 2 decades of teaching the Bible as a Christian, I primarily emphasized the second BCD. My Bible teaching is laden with imperatives and commands: deny yourself (Mt 16:24), take up your cross (Mk 8:34), feed sheep (Jn 21:15-17), make disciples (Mt 28:19), meditate on God’s word day and night (Ps 1:2), be joyful (1 Th 5:16), pray continually (1 Th 5:17), always give thanks (1 Th 5:18), etc. If I felt the Bible student was not adequately responding in a timely fashion, I would throw in severe threats for good measure. (If you don’t repent, God will give you AIDS … or the Ebola virus!)

Did I do something wrong? “No” and “Yes.” “No,” because I did teach what the Bible said. But “yes” because I stressed the second BCD of behavior, conduct and duty, rather than the 1st BCD of belief, creed and doctrine. I did not deny the first BCD. However, I stressed the Christian life rather than Christ. I stressed being good rather than the gospel. I stressed doing rather than done. I stressed, “Finish your job,” rather than “It is finished” (Jn 19:30).

Is that a problem? I think it is because when behavior, conduct and duty is emphasized in Bible teaching and preaching, our outward Christian life can seem to be right, while our heart may drift (Mt 15:8; Isa 29:13). But God looks at the heart, not the nice outward Christian appearance (1 Sam 16:7).

Weary and tired. Also, when Christian duty is stressed, we soon become weary and tired. When behavior and conduct is emphasized, the Christian life is driven by a sense of duty and burden, rather than the unending wonder of who Jesus is.

Is the BCD of Bible teaching and preaching relevant and practical?

This post and quotes are from a blog by Duke Tabor, a pastor who has been a Christian for 33 years: Spiritual Abuse: Shepherds Ruling Like Royalty. He regards spiritual abuse as “a very real and tragic problem in our churches.” Obviously, I know that very well.

Definition: “Spiritual abuse is the misuse of power, authority, leadership or influence to further the self centered interests or agenda of the leader rather than to meet the needs of the individual that is following that leader. This happens sometimes because of a flawed doctrinal position and sometimes it happens because of an unmet emotional or spiritual need within the leader that is being met with illegitimate means. Those that engage in spiritual abuse can sometimes be described as legalistic, mind controlling, spiritually addictive, and authoritarian.”

Tabor identifies 5 common characteristics of spiritually abusive leaders, churches and organizations:

1. Predominantly authoritarian.
2. Very concerned with outward appearances.
3. Suppresses criticism.
4. Promote perfectionism.
5. Always biblically unbalanced.

Overemphasizing Authority. Regarding authoritarianism, Tabor writes: “(Spiritually abusive leaders and churches) are predominantly authoritarian. The most prevalent commonality of spiritually abusive systems or leaders is the overemphasis of authority. Since the leader claims to have a special insight or revelation by God either directly or by the Scriptures, this allows them to claim they have a right to exert authority over their followers. They claim a positional seat of power and will even use the scriptures to justify it. Many times they will call it the Moses model of leadership. This is what the scribes and Pharisees did in the day of Jesus (Matt 23:1-2). This assumes that God works through a chain of command or leadership structure rather than in each individual being part of the body of Christ. These authoritarian leaders will claim usually by innuendo that people who submit to them receive a special blessing by God.”

Addressing Authoritarianism. My mantra over the past few years to everyone in UBF can almost be perfectly articulated by what Tabor wrote above. I do believe that God is helping us to gradually begin to address this as more and more people begin to speak up prayerfully and respectfully. Progress is being made simply by the fact that in the past the implicit (or explicit) attitude was “Don’t speak up. Keep spiritual order and just obey.” But today we Christians can begin to speak out against what we believe is not right before God and man.

A Humble Servant. I addressed this problem of authoritarian Christian leadership in my very first post on Nov 4, 2010: Why Do We Have Divisions? Authoritarianism weakens or breaks relationships. It is never ever right nor biblical. It does not mean that there will be no leader or elder or shepherd or visionary in the church. But it does mean that the Christian leader does not lead with his authority, but leads like a humble servant (Mk 10:42-45; 1 Pet 5:3). This is always easier said than done, especially for those who have been in church for some decades, such as myself.

Depending on the interest, I may address the other 4 aspects of spiritual abuse identified by Tabor. Or you can read it for yourself: Spiritual Abuse: Shepherds Ruling Like Royalty.

Do you feel that the problem of authoritarianism is being addressed? Do you have any practical proposals and suggestions going forward?

I lost $1,000,000! Over 6 months in 2004, I gave 1.1 million USD in cash to a conman, believing he would invest the money, and give me 20+% interest rates yearly for the rest of my life. It is beyond reason and rationality. Also, I was the only victim! I was stupid beyond belief! Give cash…at a gas station…with no paper trail! Seriously?? That’s my “worst” sin.

Why did I do it? Greed? Pride? Self-sufficiency? Yes. But basically, I wanted to retire ASAP! I wanted to be a benevolent UBF man who can financially support poorer UBF people through out the world. But really, folks! Mainly I just wanted to retire, because I was just plain sick and tired of working as a doctor! (Now I am still working and will likely have to work for many more years! God is funny, isn’t He?)

Did I have that much cash to give? No. But being a doctor, I was able to borrow hundreds of thousands of dollars from 2 banks. I also borrowed significant cash from friends, and used up all the cash and savings we had.

Did you have to file for bankruptcy? I thought I would have to. But I worked 10 hours a day, 6 days a week for 2 years in order to pay off all my debts. My mom gave me $100,000, that helped me out tremendously. I have since paid her back.

What happened to the guy that conned you? I reported him to the FBI. They arrested him in 2006. He is now serving an 8 year sentence.

Did you get your money back? Some of it. When the FBI arrested him, they found some of the cash in the trunk of his car! This is nothing but God’s mercy, for I had resolved never to get anything back.

How did this sin affect you? It devastated and embarrassed my wife and 4 kids. To this day, I grieve because I brought upon them such shame and pain. I had totally dishonored my God, my wife, my children, my church and myself.

What did you learn from this sin? Many things. But amazingly, at this lowest point of my life, Jeremiah 31:3 came to me: “I have loved you with an everlasting love.” I was truly stunned that when I could not even bear myself, God’s love for me did not change one iota! Knowing God’s unchanging love for me was literally the ONLY thing that kept me going.

Does your wife blame you? She should. I would not blame her if she did. But she never did. What can I say! It is a grace that is second only to the grace of Jesus.

What did you do during this time? I continued being a shepherd and Bible teacher, as though nothing was happening! I acted like a good Christian.

Now what? I live with the fear of God. Just recounting this story still gives me chills and shivers! But it is not a fear that drives me away from God, but a fear and trembling that draws me to cling to Jesus (Phil 2:12-13). Also, I live with the boldness, confidence and fearlessness, that even though my sins are too great, God’s grace is greater still.

That’s it? I have lots more sins and blind spots. I need the prayers and help of friends to help me see them. Confessing sin is surely what God expects from sinners. This quote might help:

Well may the accuser roar of sins that I have done;

I know them all and thousands more and Jehovah knoweth none.

Do you have sins you want to confess?

The consequences of sin remain, even after God forgives our sin. David did not want his adultery with Bathsheba known. He committed the “greater” sin of murder in order to cover up his “lesser” sin of adultery. His sin found him out. God forgave David’s sin (2 Sam 12:13). We Christians will meet him in heaven. But the consequences of David’s sin were devastating. David’s oldest son Amnon raped his half-sister Tamar (2 Sam 13:14). To ask a few “silly” questions to make a point:

• How would a father feel about his daughter being raped?
• About his oldest son raping someone?
• About his own son raping his own daughter?

That’s not all. David’s most handsome son Absalom killed Amnon for raping his sister Tamar (2 Sam 13:28-29).

• How does a father feel about his oldest son being murdered?
• About another son being a murderer?
• About one son killing another son?

Next, Abasalom slept in public with all of his father’s concubines (2 Sam 16:22), and attempted to kill his own father (2 Sam 17:2-4), and take over his kingdom. The end result was that Absalom was killed, breaking David’s heart to pieces (2 Sam 18:33). God does not mince words when the Bible says, “you can be SURE that your sin will find you out.”

Supposing no one finds out my sin… Yet, many are able to “hide their sins” so that no one really knows what they did. Do they escape their sin being found out? Suppose I am addicted to watching pornography. But I know how to make sure that I am “never discovered,” not even by my wife or by anyone else. Say I go to my grave being addicted to pornography, but no one on earth knows that. Do I then escape my sin being found out, since no one knows what I did?

Sin WILL still find you out. It is obvious that pornography will distort my view of my wife, women in general, and even my own daughter. We hear of incest committed by a father toward his own daughter. We are repulsed. These daughters are scarred and wounded for life. But there is another “strange” consequence. When a father’s daughter grows up from a cute little girl and becomes an attractive woman, the daughter begins to look like the pornographic images that the father watches. As a result, he “withdraws” from his own daughter, because he cannot control his sexual urges and feelings toward his own daughter. Because the daughter needs her father’s love, she is also scarred and wounded by her father’s withdrawal from her. She then begins to seek “a father’s love” from boys and very often becomes promiscuous. Even if no one else knows, my sin WILL find me out.

Is there no hope since we all sin? Yes, sin WILL find us out. But the marvelous majestic mystery of the gospel is that my sin found itself on my Lord Jesus Christ. All my vile sins that have to expose me for the dirt bag that I truly am, found itself on the person of the purest man, my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. If my sin did not find itself on Christ, it would land entirely and squarely on me. This is the mystery of the gospel. Only the gospel can transform me from the jerk and creep that I am to be a pure, holy and blameless precious child of God.

Yes, your sin WILL find you out. Did your sin find itself on Christ?

What is sanctification? You can read in depth how Louis Berkhof (1873 – 1957), a renowned 20th century theologian, explains Sanctification. Briefly, Berkhof stresses the fact that God, and not man, is the author of sanctification and that the spiritual development of man is not a human achievement, but a work of divine grace. Thus, and I like his sentence: “Man deserves no credit whatsoever for that which he contributes to it instrumentally.” Berkhof states that this is so important because studying the Bible anthropologically (man-centeredly) and activism are such characteristic features of American Christianity that they glorify the work of man rather than the grace of God.

Probably, this is true not just of American Christianity but of Christianity through out the world, because the default mode of every man’s sin is incurvatus in se, which means to be “curved inward on oneself.” So it it “normal” to study the Bible self-centeredly, rather than God-centeredly or Christ-centeredly. It is also “natural” to think and feel and function as though my sanctification is up to me, even if I say that it is up to Christ.

How does the Apostle Paul view sanctification? For sure, Paul acknowledges that his sanctification is all because of Jesus and not him (Php 2:12-13; 1 Cor 15:10). Paul also views his sanctification as “I am not there yet.” Where does he say this? Paul said, “Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already arrived at my goal…” (Php 3:12a). Again, he said, “I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it” (Php 3:13a). Paul’s single goal and desire is to be like Christ. But Paul basically said, “I’m not there yet.”

When Paul said this, he was likely addressing a false teaching called “perfectionism,” which suggests that a Christian can become perfect (or close to it) in this lifetime. Perfectionism is not an uncommon sentiment among Christians today. There is an account of an older minister who preached in church that he had achieved a state of perfection as a Christian. A man asked him after the sermon, “Does your wife agree that you have achieved this state of perfection.” He answered, “She does not believe in that doctrine yet!”

Such a teaching began with John Wesley who explained from studying Php 2:12 and Php 2:15 that Christians should strive for perfection (true) and concluded that some Christians could reach some degree of perfection in this life (not true). Wesley’s motivation for saying this was good: He wanted to combat the dead formalism of the church in his day. He wanted to see real, vibrant holiness among Christians. But to say that perfection is possible or attainable for a Christian in this lifetime is not supported by the Bible.

I have also sensed an implicit idea that Christians may regard themselves as more holy, more godly, more spiritual, and more mature the older they get. It is likely true that Christians, quantitatively speaking, “sin less” as they get older. But are older Christian really less sinful? I painfully acknowledge that a major reason that I seemingly “sin less” today is because I had a lot more strength to sin more when I was younger!

Such an idea that older Christians are holier, more godly, and more spiritually mature was not what Paul communicated. Such an idea promotes subtle (or blatent) elitism and a self-righteousness, which is not healthy for any church or Christian community. Paul was not an elitist. He never viewed himself as above the rest, or above his flock. He testified freely that he is the worst of sinners not as a young Christian, but as a mature, seasoned, Christian (1 Tim 1:15). He regarded all his fellow Christians as co-servants (Php 1:1), partners (Php 1:5) and brothers (Col 1:1), and not as his subordinates or “foot soldiers.” How could Paul be so genuinely humble? He knows from his heart and core being that he is not there yet, that he is nowhere hear perfection or Christ-likeness. Though Paul pursued perfection in Christ with all his heart, he did not teach perfectionism.

Do you agree? Do churches implicitly teach or promote perfectionism? Do older Christians communicate elitism? Is sanctification as being “not there yet” a good and helpful and healthy attitude to have (especially as we age)?

I am reading How the Gospel Brings us All the Way Home by Derek Thomas. It is a commentary on Romans 8, which has been called the best chapter and the greatest chapter in the Bible. Just as Blagojevich and I are both guilty before a human court, all mankind is guilty in God’s sight, for “there is no one righteous, not even one” (Rom 3:10, 23). Every inclination, imagination and intention of our inner thoughts are evil all the time (Gen 6:5). Our heart is incurably deceitful (Jer 17:9). Even our very best righteous acts are like filthy rags–like a soiled menstrual cloth (Isa 64:6). Because of our sin we are all deserving of condemnation. However, Rom 8:1 amazingly declares the best news imaginable, “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” This verse always reminds me of my friend Jim Rabchuk, for he has shared often that this is his conversion verse.

Just how radical is this good news of no condemnation? Our past and present sins may still guilt us into feeling condemned. How could I still lust like that? Lie like that? It is because of our performance mentality that is all too common. We feel good or bad depending on whether we do spiritual things or give in to sin. But Paul says that our state of “no condemnation” is not based on or dependent on our performance, but on being “in Christ.” Paul could have said it in the positive, “In Christ, there is justification,” which is God declaring righteous those who are in Christ (2 Cor 5:21). But he said, “In Christ, there is no condemnation.” This is the gospel of good news. This is the grace of God that we Christians have not merited or earned, nor can we ever merit or earn it.

Are there objections to this gospel of grace (Acts 20:24)? Yes. They have come from Christians. It goes something like this: “If you only teach grace, you will produce nominal uncommitted disobedient Christians who will sin as they please. So you need to balance grace with the law.”

Is it true that teaching grace (without adding law or performance) produces lawless Christians or antinomianism, which means anti-law, disregarding God’s law, or a license to sin? Paul anticipated this charge and asked, “Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?” (Rom 6:1) In fact, Paul’s response in Romans goes like this: “If we are not tempted to think that we can sin freely and still be Christians, we have not understood the gospel.” To Paul, grace MUST raise the temptation to think that we can sin as we please; if it does not, we have not understood the depth and true extent of grace. Yet, at no time can we yield to the temptation to think this way. Paul answers his own question in Rom 6:1: ”By no means!” (Rom 6:2)

How then should we respond to the gospel that gives freedom from condemnation? Grateful law-keeping is the saved sinner’s response to grace. When we add law to grace, a result is legalistic Christians. When we proclaim Paul’s gospel of radical free grace, the result is a life of holy obedient gratitude and thanksgiving for a very costly priceless grace.

Do you feel good or guilty based on your performance in keeping the law? Or do you live a life of “no condemnation in Christ” whereby you love and delight to keep the law of God?

Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892) understood the difference between Religion and the Gospel when he told the Tale of the King, the Carrot, and the Horse:

Once upon a time there was a gardener who grew an enormous carrot. He took it to his king and said, “My lord, this is the greatest carrot I’ve ever grown or ever will grow; therefore, I want to present it to you as a token of my love and respect for you.” The king was touched and discerned the man’s heart, so as he turned to go, the king said, “Wait! You are clearly a good steward of the earth. I own a plot of land right next to yours. I want to give it to you freely as a gift, so you can garden it all.” The gardener was amazed and delighted and went home rejoicing.

But there was a nobleman at the king’s court who overheard all this, and he said, “My! If that is what you get for a carrot, what if you gave the king something better?” The next day the nobleman came before the king, and he was leading a handsome black stallion. He bowed low and said, “My lord, I breed horses, and this is the greatest horse I’ve ever bred or ever will; therefore, I want to present it to you as a token of my love and respect for you.” But the king discerned his heart and said, “Thank you,” and took the horse and simply dismissed him. The nobleman was perplexed, so the king said, “Let me explain. That gardener was giving me the carrot, but you were giving yourself the horse.

I first heard this story a few years ago, which I love, for it intrigued me. It seemed to have some profound point and deep meaning. But it took me quite awhile to “get it.” Still, I often need to be refreshed. Do you see what this teaches? If you know that God offers you his salvation freely, and there is nothing to do but to accept the perfect righteousness of his Son, then you can serve God just for the love of God and for the love of people (Matt 22:37-39). But if you think you are getting salvation and “other blessings” in return for serving God, then it is yourself you are serving and yourself you are benefiting.

Why do we serve our king, Jesus? Do we serve Him because we love Him, or because we love ourselves? Do we serve Him because we delight in the Giver, or because we want His gifts? There is a big difference. So, as a Christian, why do you ever do what you do? Be honest now.

“Ah,” the neighbor says. “I hear you are religious! Great! Religion is a good thing. Where is your temple or holy place?”

“We don’t have a temple,” replies the Christian. “Jesus is our temple.”

“No temple? But where do your priests work and do their ritual?”

“We don’t have priests to mediate the presence of God,” replies the Christian. “Jesus is our priest.”

“No priests? But where do you offer your sacrifices to acquire the favor of your God?”

“We don’t need a sacrifice,” replies the Christian. “Jesus is our sacrifice.”

“What kind of religion is this?” sputters the pagan neighbor.

And the answer is, it’s no kind of religion at all.

In its very essence the Gospel or Christianity signifies the end of religion. The above imaginary conversation expresses how the Gospel is different from and the very opposite of how people perceive Religion to be, including Christianity that is inadequately understood and communicated.  (The differences in the table between Religion and the Gospel is explained further in the link). Briefly, Religion is man’s effort to reach God, while the Gospel is the good news that God reaches out to man through Jesus Christ. Interestingly, it was the most religious people of Jesus’ day that schemed to kill Jesus and they did. To give mankind peace and rest, Jesus put an end to religion, while the religious elite put an end to Jesus. Religion is always threatened by and opposed by the Gospel of Jesus.

Do you understand Christianity to be the Gospel (good news) of God saving you through Christ? Or might you think of Christianity as your efforts of trying to get to God?

What is marriage? Marriage is covenant keeping and commitment to Christ. Therefore, it is till death do us part. But the reality is that even as Christians, our marriages may be strongly biased by/based on “Something in the Way She Moves” (George Harrison, The Beatles, 1969), just like non-Christians. Then in the course of time, the song changes to “You’ve Lost that Lovin’ Feelin’” (The Righteous Brothers, 1964). This may explain why Christians have similar divorce rates as non-Christians in the U.S.

Marriage by faith. I have taught “marriage by faith” for 25 years based on Gen 2:18-25. I coined the triple Ms (MMM): Man, Mission, Marriage by using 1) a negative and 2) a positive illustration: 1) Gen 6:1-6 where godless men married godlessly based on shallow sensual sexuality from one’s outward beauty. 2) Isaac’s “marriage by faith” with Rebekah in Gen 24:1-67. Though this “teaching” is not unbiblical, it is not the intent of the author to encourage Christians to marry like Isaac and Rebekah. To do so would be an incorrect or improper exegesis leading to a forced hermeneutics, which amounts to eisogesis. D. A. Carson, Professor of the NT at Trinity, said, “A text without a context is a pretext for a proof text.” (Enjoy!) This is what churches through out history, including ours, have been guilty of, often without realizing it. What then is the meaning of marriage? How should we Christians view marriage?

MMM to CCC. To answer this question in a short essay would be impossible. But may I propose and suggest that according to the Bible, “Marriage is primarily Covenant keeping and Commitment to Christ.” (If you like to add another “C” it would be “Marriage is Covenant keeping and Commitment and Conformity to Christ.”) I got these words and phrases from John Piper. So I will change MMM to CCC. What does this mean?

God’s Utmost Love for Us is Expressed Through a Happy Marriage. Without quoting biblical references I will attempt to explain what I believe is God’s ultimate purpose for marriage. It is primarily to help us realize God’s utmost love for us through our marriage. To those who have a good long lasting happy marriage, you know that your happiness with one another is just a foretaste and a shadow of our ultimate marriage with Christ, which will be fully realized when he comes again. When we flop into the arms of our spouse and lover in ecstasy, it will not even compare to flopping into the arms of Christ when Jesus returns. When we look into the loving eyes of our spouse, it is just a reminder of that day when we will see Jesus face to face with him loving us with the deepest and fondest of affection. A Christian’s genuinely happy marriage shows the whole world that what God truly wants for man is our ultimate happiness, which will be perfectly fulfilled and fully realized at the Second Coming. In the meantime, a happy Christian marriage is a sign to the world and to the happy Christian couple that God’s love for us is immensely great.

God Redeems Marriage and Love Through Christ. Previously, I explained how in UBF we have tended to emphasize that Man Equals Mission. Though it is true that God created man and even marriage for mission, it is really not the primary purpose for creating man. God created man primarily to enjoy the love of God and the love of one another. This is what Jesus said (Matt 22:37-39). But we failed to love God and others/our own spouses, because of our sins of selfishness and self-centeredness, even as Christians. Only a restored and ongoing relationship with the Father, through his Son, by the work of the Spirit, are we able to love God and others. Thus, a loving and happy husband wife relationship and friendship can only be accomplished through the redeeming work of Christ on the cross. (Thus, “unhappy Christian marriages,” which is an oxymoron, occur when Christ is not central in the marriage or in their relationship.)

Commit to our Covenant with Christ by Committing to Marriage. Therefore, each individual Christian’s committed covenant keeping with Christ is absolutely foundational to a happy marriage. If Jesus’ love for me does not move my heart to tears and thanksgiving, I will not be able to love my wife (not to mention others) in a way that will build her up and sanctify her and make her more and more beautiful and glorious (Eph 5:25-27). When I sacrificially love, protect, provide for and treasure my wife (even imperfectly) as Christ loved the church (perfectly), I will begin to fulfill my mission as a man, a husband, a father and a steward of the world by displaying the love and glory of Christ through my marriage and my family. That is why the Apostle Paul’s requirement for elders and leaders in the church is how well they are managing their own family and household (1 Tim 3:4-5; Tit 1:6).

Would you teach marriage as covenant keeping and commitment to Christ? Should we emphasize that marriage is for mission, which Bible commentators do not do?

When I studied Genesis in 1980, I was taught that God created man for mission (Gen 1:28). Dr. Samuel Lee, the founder of UBF, came up with a catchphrase which I loved: “Man = Mission, Mission = Man.” This catchy phrase is found in UBF’s Genesis Bible study materials worldwide. Because of the grace of Jesus poured out on me, I wanted to give of myself for my mission from God, which was to devote myself to one-to-one Bible study with anyone and everyone. This has been my staple of Christian life for the last three decades of my life to this day. This is surely nothing but the marvelous grace of Jesus to me.

So why am I now rethinking the phrase “Man = Mission” which has revolutionized the purpose of my entire life?

Many of our Bible studies could be synagogue sermons. In my article “What is the Point of Genesis?” I argue that Jesus and the New Testament apostles testify that all the Old Testament Scriptures, including Genesis, are about Jesus and the salvation found in him (John 5:39; Luke 24:27,44; 1 Cor 15:3-4). So does teaching that Man = Mission point us to Christ and lead us to salvation? Edmond Clowney says that any sermon or Bible study that does not take into account the full drama of redemption and its realization in Christ is a “synagogue sermon,” one that a Jew would agree with. So if “Man = Mission” is the point of a Bible study or sermon, it might be agreed with by many a non-Christian, while they still remain lost in sin and bound for eternal condemnation.

A “Man = Mission” theology makes mission, not Christ, the focus our Christian lives. Furthermore, the teaching of “man = mission” might shape our Christian psyche in a way that may not focus on or emphasize the main point of the Bible, which is “Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Col 1:27). Mission-centered (instead of Christ-centered) Bible studies and sermons could subtly or implicitly idolize mission in place of worshipping God. Whenever anything becomes an idol, even something good like God’s mission, it stops glorifying God. Then our idolatry of mission, rather than God himself, becomes our practical identity and our self-worth as a Christian and as a church.

Mission as idolatry. Tim Keller defines an idol as making a good thing an ultimate thing. For instance, our children are among God’s best gifts to us human beings. But if our children become ultimate to us, knowingly or unknowingly, they become ab idol, taking the place of God). Then our joy is dependent on our children doing well and making us proud parents. We may unwittingly crush them, spoil them, even ruin them for life. Similarly, when our mission becomes our idol, our strongest joy and delight is not God (Ps 37:4), but how well we are carrying out our mission. The object of our glory becomes a fruitful, exemplary ministry with many growing disciples, growing church attendants, and missionaries being sent out. Then our disciples and members are regarded not as precious redeemed people, but as objects and tools for our glory, church growth, and mission. If any particular disciple in our church disappoints us, or “doesn’t produce,” or leaves the church, they become marginalized or stigmatized. They are labeled as selfish and worldly and are said to have “run away.”

Though mission is important, I do not believe that it can be the major driving force of any Christian individual or church. Even mission can become an idol if it, rather than Christ functions as the ultimate joy and meaning of our lives. So, according to Genesis, how might we rethink teaching the purpose of man’s life?

Before God gave man a mission, he created man for relationships (Gen 1:26-28). When God created man in his image, he wanted man to be a relational being. God created man in relationship to God, to himself, to others, and to the world, which was all broken when man sinned created man for relationships. Only Christ, through his redeeming work on the Cross, restores all our broken relationships. Tim Keller said, “If this world was made by a triune God, relationships of love are what life is really all about.” If we make mission rather than relationships as primary, we could be “faithful” to our mission while damaging precious and priceless relationships. What if I’m a so-called “exemplary, fruitful, influential Christian leader,” but my wife is not happy, my children don’t relate to their dad, my fellow Christians think I am unapproachable, and my non-Christian friends think that I’m arrogant and self-righteous. I guess you could still insist, “I am mission-centered.” Someone said, “It doesn’t please God to sacrifice our families on the altar of Christian mission,” or something to that effect.

Mission is ultimately the mission of God, not man’s mission. When I emphasize that “man is mission,” I think that mission is what I must do as a responsible Christian. If I do my mission “well,” I could be commended and honored, but if my mission is “not fruitful,” I could be regarded as unimportant. But is mission ultimately my duty, or God’s doing? Countless promises through out the Bible begins with God saying, “I will…” Therefore, God is the One who will fulfill His mission. When I realize that mission is really not my mission or man’s mission, but God’s mission, then all I need to do is to humbly and prayerfully jump on God’s bandwagon, and go along for the ride. God will fulfill his mission, with or without my participation or involvement, and regardless of my obedience or disobedience. Jesus said to Peter, “I will build my church” (Matt 16:18). It is really not up to Peter or me to ensure that God’s mission is carried out correctly or properly. It is nothing but the grace of Jesus that Peter or I or anyone else am enabled and empowered to participate in God’s mission.

Mission is ultimately completed by Christ. Tim Keller’s audio sermon entitled Made for Stewardship (Gen 1:26-2:2, 7-9, 15) explains man’s work and “mission” differently from UBF. Keller explains man’s work in relationship to rest, for God worked for 6 days and rested on the 7th day. God created us to live in a cycle of work and rest. But because of our sin, we lost our rest, regardless of whether we work or not. Also, our work becomes a burden and a curse. Even Christian service, serving God and living for God’s mission is a heavy unsustainable burden and a curse without finding rest in Christ (Matt 11:28-29).

Without understanding the rest purchased for us in Christ, our work, including our Christian mission becomes our sense of identity or self-worth. To Rocky Balboa, his “work” was to go the distance for 15 rounds in the boxing ring. The Jewish 100 meter runner in Chariots of Fire said, “I have 10 seconds to justify my existence.” Even someone like Madonna finds fulfilment and meaning only when she produces creative work over and over again. Otherwise, she feels useless and mediocre, saying, “Even though I’ve become Somebody, I still have to prove that I am Somebody.” Similarly, as a Christian, am I still trying to prove myself through my mission? Am I still functionally finding fulfilment only when I preach well, disciple others well, grow my church well, and am respected by others, etc.? But such a life of God’s mission is a life that is too heavy for me to bear. Furthermore, God did not intend for me to do so with such a mission driven or performance based attitude.

Saying “man is mission” is not wrong. But ultimately, it is not my mission or my work, but Christ completing his mission and his work, when he said, “It is finished” (John 19:20). Only Christ fulfilled perfectly “Man = Mission.” When I realize that Christ completed the mission where I failed, I find rest in Christ’s completed work. Then, and only then can I live a life of mission by His strength and grace alone with the utmost of gratitude, thanksgiving and joy.

Do we overemphasize mission when teaching Genesis? Should Genesis point to Christ who alone fulfilled his mission?

This question is especially pertinent to us because, for the last fifty years, the study of Genesis has been the bread and butter of UBF’s Bible study ministry throughout the world. God has blessed thousands of people through our study of Genesis. It has led to many genuine conversions to Christ. It did for me when I studied Genesis in 1980 with Dr. John Lee of Lincoln Park UBF.

How I had understood Genesis. Having studied and taught Genesis for the last three decades, I can say that my understanding and presentation of Genesis was built upon imperatives: God is the Creator, and you are not; therefore, you must honor God as the Lord of your life (Gen 1:1). Man sinned; therefore, repent of your sins (Gen 3:1-7). Cain proudly rejected God’s sovereignty; therefore, you must humbly accept God’s sovereignty (Gen 4:1-7). Noah obeyed God and built an ark of salvation; therefore, you must obey (Gen 6:1-22).

I saw the patriarchs as examples to be emulated. Be an ancestor of faith and a source of blessing, and offer your “Isaac” to God as Abraham did (Gen 12:2-3; 15:1-21; 22:1-19). Marry by faith as Isaac did (Gen 24:1-67). Struggle with God as Jacob did (Gen 32:22-32). Forgive others as Joseph did (Gen 50:15-21).

Genesis surely contains ethical and moral principles, illustrations and examples for our Christian lives today (1 Cor 10:6,11). But are these teachings to be obeyed the point of the book? How are Christians to understand Genesis? What did Jesus say about Genesis and the rest of the Old Testament (OT)?

What Jesus said. In John 5:39, Jesus spoke to Israel’s Bible teachers about the OT: “These are the Scriptures that testify about me.” Luke 24:27 says that Jesus “explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.” In Luke 24:44, Jesus said, “Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” Basically, Jesus said that all of the OT Scriptures, including Genesis, are about him. They are not primarily about Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob. They are not primarily about me. They are primarily about Jesus.

What Paul said. In Acts 20:27, Paul said, “…for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God.” The “whole counsel of God” refers to the OT, because the NT had not yet been written. Throughout his thirteen epistles, Paul regarded the gospel of Jesus’ death and resurrection as matters of first importance, and he believed the gospel was “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor 15:1-4). Paul confirmed that Jesus’ death and resurrection are in accordance with the whole counsel of OT Scriptures.

What Peter and the four gospel writers said. All of Peter’s sermons in Acts were a proclamation of Christ by citing the OT Scriptures (Acts 2:14-41). The gospel writers Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all quoted extensively from the OT to demonstrate that Jesus is the promised Messiah.

If Jesus, Paul, Peter, and the evangelists presented the OT Scriptures as a proclamation of Christ, shouldn’t we be doing the same?

I have found that it is possible to teach, reveal and proclaim Christ from Genesis. Here are just a few illustrations from select stories of Abraham and Jacob.

God’s covenant with Abraham (Gen 15). When Abraham asked God how he would gain possession of the promised land, God answered by explaining a covenant ritual that involved cutting a heifer, a goat and a ram in two and arranging the halves opposite each other (Gen 15:8-10). Then when Abraham fell into a deep sleep, a smoking firepot with a blazing torch (representing God) appeared and passed between the pieces (Gen 15:17-18). This was how God made a covenant with Abraham. What is the meaning of this grotesque and bloody ritual which involved cutting three animals in half? When parties made a covenant in ancient time, both parities would walk between the divided animals so as to signify, “May this be done to me if I break this covenant. May I be torn apart. May I be cut in half.” But after Abraham prepares the animals, instead of the firepot moving between the animals side by side with Abraham, God went through this bloody alleyway all by himself. God takes the full responsibility for the fulfillment of the covenant all by himself, even when we fail to keep our part of the deal. Whenever we sin, it is God, not us, who becomes like the butchered and sliced animal. This is grace. When we personally know this immeasurably costly grace, we begin to understand that the only one true blessing is Christ, not Abraham or anyone else.

Abraham offered Isaac (Gen 22). When God asked Abraham to offer his only son Isaac as a sacrifice, it was not to command us to offer him our Isaac. God stopped Abraham, because the actual sacrifice of Isaac wasn’t necessary; one day God was going to sacrifice his Son for us all (Rom 8:32). This was explained in a previous article.

Jacob’s dream at Bethel (Gen 28). At Bethel, Jacob saw “a stairway resting on the earth, with its top reaching to heaven, and the angels of God were ascending and descending on it.” What is the personal application we are supposed to draw from this passage? Is the passage teaching us that we should make a disgustingly selfish vow, as Jacob did, so that we will see a vision? Or does this dream teach us something significant about God?

Jacob wanted God’s blessing, as do we all. Jacob was not seeking God. But God was seeking him. As God came down in judgment on the tower of man’s pride at Babel (Gen 11:4), so in Jacob’s dream God came down to Jacob in grace. The angels ascending and descending on the stairway signified an opening of communication between heaven and earth. The climax of the vision is that God came down the stairway to stand over Jacob. The Lord stood “above it” (Gen 28:13) has also been translated and understood to mean “beside him” or “over him.” Jesus identifies himself to Nathanael as the one on whom the angels ascend and descend (John 1:50-51). Standing by Jacob, the Lord taught Jacob about Himself. He is the God of the past (Gen 28:13), the future (Gen 28:14), and the present (Gen 28:15). He is the God who takes the initiative with selfish Jacob and with selfish me. God comes to us in the person of Jesus.

God’s initiative in establishing a relationship with fallen mankind is a recurring theme throughout the book of Genesis. God approached Adam and Eve (Gen 3:9), Noah (Gen 6:13-14), Abraham (Gen 12:1-3), and now Jacob. God’s initiative challenges our natural, default way of thinking that we must make a sincere effort to seek God and please God enough to bring forth his blessing upon our lives. The painful, honest truth is that “there is no one who seeks God,” “not even one” (Rom 3:10-12; Ps 14:1-3, 53:1-3; Eccl 7:20). Jacob did not earnestly seek God, and neither do we. It is God who takes the initiative to seek us, ultimately at great cost to himself (John 4:23).

Jacob’s struggle with God (Gen 32). This famous wrestling match took place at night at the ford of the Jabbok River. Does this passage teach that we must also struggle with God until God blesses us? Does this mean that anyone and everyone who struggles with God gets to see God and receive his blessing? Is my struggle the determining factor as to whether or not I see God and get his blessing?

In any wrestling match, who wins? The one who is stronger and better. In a wrestling match between God and man, who is the stronger one? The answer is obvious. Yet God declared Jacob the winner (Gen 32:28). How could this be? God wrenched Jacob’s hip, declared him the winner, and then blessed him (Gen 32:25-29). In the morning, Jacob understood the grace of God when he said, “I saw God face to face and yet my life was spared” (Gen 32:30). Obviously, God allowed Jacob to win. But one day, God would have to lose. God blessed Jacob, but one day he was going to have to curse his Son (Gal 3:13). Jacob struggled at the river and victoriously won. One day, Jesus was going struggle at Gethsemane’s Garden in unbearable agony and then lose in an apparently conclusive defeat. For Jacob and for us to see the glorious light of the face of God (2 Cor 4:4), God had to hide his face in the darkness of Calvary (Matt 27:46). Only by God losing in heartbreaking humiliation could we ever gain the final victory.

What is the point of Genesis? It is Jesus. It is the gospel. It is the marvelous grace of Jesus. It is the initiative of God to seek us out, to love us and to save us at great cost to himself.

Do you agree that Genesis is about Jesus? Do you focus on Jesus when you teach Genesis?

References

1. Preaching Christ in All of Scripture, Edmond P. Clowney, 2003
2. The God Who is There, D. A. Carson, 2010
3. Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture, Graeme Goldsworthy, 2000
4. The Gospel Coalition 2011 Conference: “Preaching Jesus and the Gospel from the Old Testament.” (9 excellent lectures)

Some Protestants object to this statement. They remove it from the creed or remain silent during that part.

“He descended into Hades” is a teaching of the early Church that is traditionally called “the harrowing of hell.” It is the belief that Jesus, at some point between his death and resurrection, went to the abode of the dead, the place that the Old Testament writers call Sheol (Hebrew) and the New Testament writers call Hades (Greek). Hades has been rendered in many English translations as “hell.”

That word “hell” conjures up images of fiery eternal torment which are consistent with Gehenna, the other Greek word appearing in the gospels which is also translated as “hell.” Because of these associations, many are led to think that “He descended into hell” means that Jesus descended into a place of punishment where he continued to suffer even after his death. That would seem to contradict what Jesus said to the thief on the cross, ““I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise” (Lk 23:43). So to many Protestants, the harrowing of hell is a teaching that seems, at best, puzzling and unnecessary, and at worst, unbiblical.

Not so for the Eastern Orthodox. For Orthodox believers, the harrowing of hell plays a key role in their understanding of what Christ accomplished through his death and resurrection.

In the Orthodox view, Jesus did not descend into hell to suffer the consequences of human sin. He entered hell as a triumphant conqueror to break the chains of those who, since the time of Adam, had been faithfully waiting and hoping for God’s promised salvation. The highlight of Orthodox Holy Week services is the Great Pascha or Vigil which begins very late Saturday night and extends into the wee hours of Sunday morning, witnessing the resurrection of Christ. The service culminates with the singing of a beautiful and very ancient hymn known as the Pascal Troparion:

There is a fascinating book that can tell you everything that you ever wanted to know about the harrowing of hell. The book is Christ the Conqueror of Hell: The Descent into Hades from an Orthodox Perspective by Archbishop Hilarion Alfeyev. I have skimmed through this book but not yet read through it carefully, so I will not attempt to give a review. Nevertheless, I have learned a few things that may be of interest to those who are wondering how to deal with that puzzling statement in the Apostles’ Creed.

First, Christ’s descent into hell can be found in Scripture. When I say it can be found in Scripture, I am not saying that the Bible definitively proves that Christ descended into hell. Rather, I am merely stating the fact that Christians from various times and traditions have found evidence for it in Scripture. Perhaps the best known reference is that cryptic passage in 1 Peter 3:18-20:

For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.

Another reference is found in the Apostle Peter’s evangelistic message on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:25-28), in which he quotes from Psalm 16:8-11 and applies it to Jesus:

I saw the Lord always before me.
Because he is at my right hand,
I will not be shaken.
Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices;
my body also will rest in hope,
because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead,
you will not let your holy one see decay.
You have made known to me the paths of life;
you will fill me with joy in your presence.

(Note that the old NIV says, “you will not abandon me to the grave.” The quotation above from the NIV 2011 says “you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead” seems to be a more accurate rendering, because the Hebrew word Sheol used by the psalmist does not merely refer to the grave, but to the underworld abode of the souls of the dead.)

Those two passages may be the most direct Scriptural evidence for a descent into hell, but there are many more passages which have been seen by some Christians to be related to it. Matthew 27:51-53 mentions some startling events that took place in the moments after Jesus’ death:

At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

Some have understood this resurrection to be the result of Christ arriving in Hades and loosening the chains of the dead. Others have seen evidence in Isaiah 9:2:

The people walking in darkness
have seen a great light;
on those living in the land of the shadow of death
a light has dawned.

Second, a belief in the harrowing of hell apears to have been widespread in the early church. Church fathers held a variety of opinions about what Jesus accomplished by his descent into Hades, and they differed over many of its theological implications. But Archbishop Alfeyev quotes extensively from the fathers, Christian apocrypha, ancient poetry and hymnody to support the view that, as a whole, the early Christians did believe that Christ entered the underworld.

Did Jesus descend into Hades? Many in the early church believed that he did.

What did Jesus do down there? I really don’t know.

When I see Jesus face to face, this is one of the many questions I intend to ask him. Until then, I’m happy to let it remain a mystery as I recite those words from the Apostles’ Creed.

Editor’s note: This article was written and posted on another blog about one year ago. Given the discussions that have appeared on UBFriends in recent days, it seems like a good time to republish it.

Reforming the Social Security program has often been called “the third rail of American politics” because if you touch it, you will get burned. The issues involved are so divisive, affecting individuals and families at such a personal level, that most national political leaders will avoid this subject at all costs.

Similarly, there is an electrified third rail in discussions about Christian unity. Being the naïve/pompous/foolish person that I am, I will now climb down onto the subway tracks, bend over, reach out, and grab this third rail with both hands.

What is this third rail? It is the centuries-old split between Protestants and the Roman Catholic Church.

What I writing comes largely from personal experience. I was born into a Catholic family, baptized as an infant, and lived as a semi-devout Catholic for 18 years. As a college freshman I was evangelized by zealous Christians from a ministry that is technically non-denominational but clearly evangelical Protestant. In my newly found faith, I reacted against Catholicism and began to view it as an aberrant expression of pure, biblically sound Christianity. Over the years, as I grew into a position of ministry leadership, I carefully avoided discussing faith-related issues with family members who are still practicing Catholics. I never really questioned whether my anti-Catholic stance was justified, and it is only recently, the last five years or so, that my thinking has begun to change. Please understand that I have no inclination to return to the Catholic church. God has called and brought me to another place. But as I have read, thought and prayed about these things, my views on many issues relevant to the Protestant/Catholic divide have been shifting considerably.

The ministry in which I serve has no official position on Catholicism, and over the years I have heard individual members express a variety of opinions. The founder of my church spoke publicly with admiration of the late Pope John Paul II. Recently, someone in my ministry (another former Catholic) exclaimed to me, “Catholics are Christians too!” Others have characterized the Catholic church as a cult and portrayed Catholics as enemies of the gospel. But on most occasions when Catholicism is mentioned in conversation (which doesn’t happen very often), the usual response is a brief, unnatural silence, followed by an awkward attempt to change the subject. During that pregnant pause, the words that I imagine, the words that I sense are being thought but not spoken, are polite, cautious, and negative.

When an evangelical expresses a negative view of Catholicism, what does he really mean? That term, Catholicism, can mean so many different things in different contexts that to even speak of it as one thing, a single entity, that can be grasped and summarized and assessed as good, mediocre, or bad is almost absurd. It is like trying to render a summary judgment about mathematics or China or health care. But in many cases, the evangelical expressing the negative opinion is probably thinking more specifically along these lines.

“Catholics teach a false gospel of salvation by works.” There is a kernel of truth in that statement, but the kernel is smaller than most Protestants realize. If you begin to do any serious, evenhanded reading of modern discussions on this subject, you will see that it represents an oversimplification and caricature of Catholic soteriology. Catholics and Protestants speak of salvation and justification using different terms and concepts. But there is huge variation among Protestants as well (e.g., Calvinism versus Arminianism), and there are vast areas of consensus across these traditions. Thoughtful Catholics and Protestants should agree that we are saved neither by works nor by faith but by Jesus Christ. Faithful Catholics and Protestants should agree that the Bible is the inspired word of God and believe Romans 1:17, “The righteous will live by faith,” along with James 2:20, “Faith without deeds is useless.” Aren’t there plenty of Protestants who talk about justification “by grace alone, through faith alone” but are, in fact, teaching and practicing all kinds of legalism? Focusing on “what we must do” more than “what God has done” is the standard fallback position that all Christians, regardless of our denominations, are inclined to slip into whenever we lose sight of the living Savior. If I had a dollar for every time I heard an evangelical say that Catholics teach “salvation by works,” I would be a rich man. And I am quite sure that, in the vast majority of those occasions, the person voicing that opinion could not accurately describe what the RCC actually teaches about salvation today. Instructive and healthy criticism requires a thorough, nuanced understanding of the position being criticized. If you are interested in exploring the differences between Catholic and Protestant views of salvation, I suggest that you first identify the wide areas of agreement. A good place to start is to read the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification signed by Roman Catholic and Lutheran leaders in 1999.

“Catholics don’t have a personal relationship with God.” Before saying this, please get to know at least one sincere and devout Catholic. Pick up a book by Henri Nouwen. Enough said.

“Catholics practice idolatry because they worship Mary, saints, statues and paintings.” Really, there is very little truth to this. Catholic tradition holds elaborate and complex views of Mary (e.g., her so-called Immaculate Conception) and her relationship to Jesus that most Protestants find problematic. Prayer to saints is part of their understanding of the doctrine of “communion of saints” expressed in the Apostles’ Creed, a doctrine which Protestants largely ignore. There are some real differences in Catholic and Protestant views here. But knowledgeable Catholics do not worship Mary or the saints. They accept the Ten Commandments and understand that worship is reserved for God alone.

“Catholics blindly follow the Pope.” I agree, to an extent. Catholic teachings about St. Peter and papal succession seem extrabiblical and hard for Protestants (and plenty of Catholics as well) to swallow. Before casting stones, however, it would be wise to heed the words of the great evangelical preacher Dr. John Stott, who said about evangelicals, “There are too many gurus and too many autocrats who lay down the law in the local church in defiance of the teaching of Jesus… There are too many who behave as though they believe, not in the priesthood of all believers, but in the papacy of all pastors.”

“Catholics have wrong views about the sacraments. They practice infant baptism, which is unbiblical and invalid. And they superstitiously think that the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ, which no sensible Protestant would ever believe.” Anyone who says this reveals ignorance of church history and Protestantism. Every major leader of the Protestant Reformation including Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, upheld and practiced paedobaptism. Luther and Calvin both believed and taught the “real presence” of Christ in Communion, albeit in different ways. The vast majority of Protestant churches today will accept a baptism practiced in any church, including Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, as valid as long as the baptism is Trinitarian, “in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” as Jesus commanded in Matthew 28:19.

“The Reformation happened for good reasons, and we shouldn’t go back.” I agree. The Protestant Reformation was a reaction against real problems and abuses in the medieval church. Catholics do not want to return to problematic medieval beliefs and practices either. What happened in the 16th century is unchangeable, but it no longer accurately frames the doctrinal, cultural and practical issues that separate Protestants and Catholics today.

Please do not call me an apologist for the Roman Catholic church. If you have actually paid attention to my words, you will know that there are some Catholic positions that I do not agree with and many more that I simply do not understand. But I also do not agree with or understand many things that are taught and practiced in various Protestant churches either. And there are plenty things about my own church that I do not like. Church membership, denominational positions and historical events from centuries past do not control and define the character or faith of real flesh-and-blood people today. God cares about people, all of them, far more than he cares about institutions and labels.

Back when I was a young teenager, I stumbled across a column published in a conservative Catholic newspaper that my mother used to read. It was about hymns that were being sung at Catholic Mass. The author objected to How Great Thou Art because that hymn was written by a Protestant and was therefore suspect and impure. Even at that young age, I found his statement so appalling that I remember it to this day. But just a few years later, I began to think and speak of Catholicism and Catholics in precisely the same way. Having strong Protestant convictions is fine. But do those convictions require me to scrupulously avoid all things that vaguely appear to be Catholic because there are Catholics who presently do them?

Through interacting with today’s college students (the so-called postmoderns), I have been deeply impressed by their relational maturity. They love to engage in thoughtful, evenhanded, openminded, give-and-take discussion. They are not afraid to touch the third rail. They long to break down barriers and find common ground with people who are different from them. They instinctively understand that unity does not require uniformity. And they have no interest in perpetuating theological divisions, culture wars and us-versus-them mentalities of generations past. Do you want to impress young people, gain their respect and open their hearts to Christ? Then demonstrate a healthy spirit of criticism toward yourself and your own tradition. Reach out and communicate in a loving, Christlike way with those who are different from you. Show them that you are open to learning and revising your own opinions as God shows you new things. Do you want to offend young people and close their hearts? Then promote caricature, stereotype, and ignorance by continually praising your own group, church or culture while glibly criticizing those on the outside. And then brace yourself for others to treat you likewise. What goes around, comes around.

House churches are diverse and difficult to characterize. They tend to be small and informal, led by laypeople with no paid staff. They invoke simple, bare-bones Christianity without the trappings of organized religion. People seem to like them because they are the exact opposite of the megachurch, a symbol of what many find distasteful about present-day American culture. The megachurch is supposedly corporate, consumer-driven, and depersonalizing, whereas the house church is seen as authentic, organic, close-knit and personal, attractive to homeschoolers, do-it-yourselfers and others who like to swim against the prevailing tides. (Personally, I think that characterization of megachurches is unfair. But that’s another story.)

Since the early 1990’s, I have pastored a small UBF church. For the first 15 years, we held weekly worship services in our home. When the congregation outgrew our living room, we met in various temporary locations and eventually purchased our own building. Thus I can legitimately claim to be on the cutting edge of the house-church movement.

But for much of that time, we called this operation a “ministry” rather than a church. Three years ago, we incorporated in Pennsylvania and obtained federal 501 (c) (3) status as a church. So we are a now a legitimate church, at least in the view of the IRS. But are we legit in the sight of God?

This is an issue that we have not fully resolved. It is crucial one, because it affects our standing in the larger Christian community, how we present ourselves to those who have looked upon us with curiosity or suspicion and asked, “Why are you doing this?”

We are definitely making progress in understanding who we are. One important point to consider is the distinction between “a true church” and “the true Church.” The true Church consists of all people from all places and times who belong to Christ. It is not a visible organization with membership roster that we can see in this world; only God knows who truly belongs to him. But certainly this true Church includes people who attend churches of many flavors, shapes and sizes. I believe that I am a member of the true Church because I am a committed follower of Jesus. (I no longer doubt my salvation; God has given me assurance through the Holy Spirit that I belong to Christ. But even as I rest in God’s salvation, I need to be constantly persevering in my faith and putting my trust in Christ alone, rather than trusting my own past decisions and experiences.)

On the other hand, “a true church” is a concept that is more difficult to define. The Apostle Paul wrote letters to the saints in Corinth, Ephesus, Rome, and so on, and Revelation chapters 1-2 speak of seven churches in seven cities. But in any given city, the church did not necessarily function as a single congregation; more likely, it was a loosely organized network of believers who met in their homes.

All of the churches mentioned in the New Testament had strengths and weaknesses in their beliefs and behaviors. Some were commended, others were rebuked. For example, in Revelation 2:6, Jesus declared that he hated the practices of the Nicolatians who were leading believers astray. But I cannot find any example in Scripture where a whole community of people who baptized in the name of Jesus Christ – or “in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” as Jesus commanded – is denounced as a false or illegitimate church.

Since the beginning, the Church has produced doctrinal statements like the Apostles Creed to define the essence of what Christians believe. These statements were originally used to catechize new believers and prepare them for baptism. They establish many of core teachings of the faith – the Trinity, the death and resurrection of Jesus, and so on. If someone is not willing to confess the Apostle’s Creed (except perhaps for that part “he descended into Hades,” which many find difficult to understand) then I would certainly wonder whether that person is a Christian. By this creedal standard, groups that claim to hold Jesus in high regard — Bahais, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc. — but are not distinctly Trinitarian are not calling people to the Christian faith. There may be some members of the true Church within these communities, but they are not systematically drawing people into the true Church.

Yet Christians have many more yardsticks that go far beyond the basic creeds by which they evaluate churches and declare them to be true or false, healthy or aberrant. Many of these yardsticks are based on theological or political leanings and personal experience. Sometimes they reflect stereotype, prejudice, and ignorance of other cultures and generational tribes. Sometimes they are rooted in tragic past hurts and unresolved conflicts.

There is a good Christian man whom I see and talk to regularly. Many years ago, someone close to him was sexually molested by a Roman Catholic priest, and has been strongly anti-Roman Catholic ever since. That horrible event has become the prism through which he sees and evaluates the whole Catholic church. He now identifies himself not as a “Christian” but as a “Protestant Christian” and would like to see other people abandon Catholicism. And who can blame him? But I do not believe that his stance – to be dismissive of a whole denomination of 1.2 billion people worldwide – is a logical response to the trauma he has suffered. One can certainly raise objections to specific teachings of Roman Catholicism. (As a former Catholic, there are many RC teachings with which I disagree.) But objecting to specific teachings is different from denouncing the whole with sweeping generalizations.

It is remarkable to me how quickly believers will denounce whole congregations and denominations that are clearly Trinitarian. They will cite Bible verses to prove their point, but in many cases, I find that the Scriptures are being used in ways that were never intended. For example, someone may say that a certain church is aberrant because “they don’t teach the Bible.” And he may cite 2 Timothy 4:2: “Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction.” This was the charge that Paul gave to Timothy to give him clear direction for his ministry. It is a charge that I take seriously, and I wish that all pastors did so. But Paul did not present this to Timothy as a yardstick to classify whole communities of Christians as unfaithful because the style, frequency or emphasis of their Bible study does not measure up to someone’s preferred standard.

Some make no clear distinction between the Body of Christ, “the true Church,” and their own congregation or denomination, which they presumably consider to be “a true church.” Perhaps they have not thought that such a distinction is necessary. But sooner or later, equating two things that are not equal will get you into trouble. In this case, the inevitable result is sectarianism, an air of superiority and distrust toward anyone outside of your group or theological tradition.

Sectarianism is passionately denounced by Apostle Paul (1Co 1:10-17; 1Co 3:1-23; 1Co 12:1-31). Paul’s pleas for unity and peaceful co-working in the church are no less strong than his warnings against sexual immorality (Gal 5:20; Eph 4:3-6; Php 4:2). Many of us would feel compelled to distance ourselves from a church member who openly and unrepentantly practiced a homosexual lifestyle. Would we act the same way toward someone who regularly speaks of his own group in unrealistically positive and glowing terms while denouncing other Christian groups and traditions in broad, sweeping terms?

Another respected leader named John Stott was at the meeting, and after Dr. Lloyd-Jones was finished, Stott approached the lectern and said to the audience, “I believe history is against what Dr. Lloyd-Jones has said… and I also believe that Scripture is against him.” Stott wanted evangelicals to stay within the Church of England to be a transforming influence.

So who, if either, is correct? When is it right to separate and leave a church or a denomination, and when should one stay and be salt and light within the church? Lloyd-Jones also said, “Ecumenical people put fellowship before doctrine. We, as Evangelicals, put doctrine before fellowship.” There is an issue here that arises however: Since no church has absolutely perfect doctrine, where is the doctrinal line drawn before one says, “this far and no further” regarding the teaching of the church?

Also, what if the question is not only one of doctrine but also practice? What if a church teaches essentially correct doctrine but its overall systematic practices go against its teaching? Lloyd-Jones had an issue with the Anglican Church because, while their doctrinal statement was basically solid, according to him, its practices across the board over time were not and so he advocated separation in that case.

What is the threshold for staying or leaving a ministry? Is there a line for the amount of doctrinal aberrance, personal abuse, or theological difference that determines staying or leaving? Or is it subjective, on a case by case basis?

For me and my wife, we decided to leave UBF because too many lines had been crossed for too long, without being able to see any glimmer of change within the ministry. I think we also felt powerless to do anything about it because whenever I broached the subject with my “shepherd,” I was very quickly shut down. Of course, now I do see that there are people who both want the ministry to change, and who have the position to do something about it. Nevertheless, if I had to make the same decision again, I would. I think that it was right for me and my wife to leave and I have never regretted it. We found another church and have been growing.

But what do you think about where the line should be drawn?

In a nutshell, Paul says that God hardened the hearts of most first-century Jews to reject the gospel message of righteousness by faith. The remnant who accepted the gospel did so by the grace of God alone. And the Gentiles who accepted the message did so by the grace of God alone. Paul also expressed his hope that someday the Jews, seeing God’s work among the Gentiles, would be aroused to envy, believe the gospel and be saved.

Why did God choose to work this way? Paul’s analysis suggests the following.

• If most of the first-century Jews had accepted Christ, then Christianity would have been so closely bound to Jewish lifestyles and traditions that the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles would have been hindered, and the message of salvation by grace alone would have been watered down.
• If most of the first-century Jews had accepted Christ, then they could think it was their superior character, discipline, keeping of the law, etc. that allowed them to fulfill their purpose as the chosen people. The fact that only a remnant accepted Christ was a mark of shame upon the Jewish Christians which humbled them, making the remnant less arrogant and less likely to impose their own cultural standards upon the Gentiles (although some of them still tried).
• The Gentiles who received the gospel from the Jewish remnant also had to be extra careful not to think of themselves as superior in any way, because if God did not spare arrogant Jews, he would not spare arrogant Gentiles either.
• If and when the gospel ultimately flows from the Gentiles back to the Jews, it will again be an act of saving grace by God’s own choosing.

Another powerful description of election is found near the beginning of 1 Corinthians, where Paul notes that neither Jews nor Gentiles were naturally inclined to accept the gospel (1Co 1:22-24):

Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

Note the use of the word called. He uses the same term again a few verses later: “Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called” (1Co 1:26). That term emphasizes that it was God who, by his divine sovereignty, selected and called the believers in Corinth out from their respective cultural groups to follow Christ. It was not their own choice, their own faith, their own character, their own anything. It was only because of him that they became Christians, and so they have absolutely no reason to boast (1Co 1:30-31). This sense of being called by Christ, and not approaching him by their own merit or choosing, was so pervasive among the early Christians that it is reflected in the name of their community. The Greek word ekklesia, which we translate as “church,” literally means, “ones who were called out.”

What does Paul’s teaching on election imply for the spread of the gospel and missionary work today? Here are three practical lessons that I draw from it.

First, it underscores the fact that evangelism is not driven by human planning, vision, or zeal, but is undertaken by God’s initiative and the work of the Holy Spirit.

There is a short passage in the middle of Romans chapter 10 where Paul writes (Ro 10:14-15):

How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”

This paragraph has often been interpreted as an exhortation to evangelism. Countless pastors have quoted these verses to urge their members to volunteer, go out, and carry the gospel to an unbelieving world so that they too can have “beautiful feet.” In the context of Romans 9-11, however, this is not an exhortation to evangelism. It is an explanation of why a remnant was chosen out of Israel to believe in Jesus. The original disciples of Jesus didn’t volunteer; they were called by Jesus and then sent by him and the Holy Spirit to the preach the gospel to the rest of Israel, who for the most part rejected the message because God had hardened their hearts. And the hardening of their hearts was part of God’s plan!

Please don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that evangelism is unnecessary. It is necessary. But it is God who calls and sends some to evangelize, and it is God who manages the outcomes, either positive or negative, and uses them for his own mysterious salvation purpose. To think that we can decide to accept a vision and go out and evangelize, and that we will be successful if we only try hard enough, pray long enough, and use the correct methods, then we are deluding ourselves. God’s interest is to save the nations, not to expand our churches and ministries. He is more than willing to allow us to fail, to chasten us, to humble us, etc. if necessary to show us the world that no group is intrinsically privileged, that salvation comes to everyone by the grace of God alone. He is more than willing to use poor, ineffective, arrogant, or ethnocentric evangelism to reveal the weaknesses of evangelists, churches and Christians and show the world that everyone, including all missionaries and all religious leaders, are sinners not just in theory, but in actuality. He is not interested in helping unrepentant Christians to save face. He wants to show off the amazing grace of his Son, not to dazzle people by the greatness of us.

Second, it shows that God’s mission travels in all directions.

God did not intend for the gospel to travel just from Jews to Gentiles. His plan was for the gospel to start with a remnant of Israel, to flow out the Gentiles, and then ultimately come back to Israel. If the gospel were to flow in one direction only, then it would elevate certain persons and groups to privileged status over others. But the gospel flows in all directions. As missionaries evangelize disciples, they must allow themselves to be re-evangelized by the disciples. This makes the concept of a missionary-sending nation somewhat dubious. Rather than praying for any nation to be “a missionary-sending nation,” it would be more reasonable to envision “a gospel-proclaiming and a gospel-receiving nation.” A church that sends missionaries overseas should not imagine itself to be just a power-station for mission, always giving but never receiving, insulating itself and not allowing itself to be influenced by the Christianity of the converts. As the Church welcomes new believers into the fold, it must itself be transformed. God is always interested in using the various parts of the Body of Christ to evangelize, renew and reform other parts. If any part seeks to reform another, it had better be prepared to be reformed right back.

In part 4 of this series, I discussed the problems with the “mission-station” strategy in which foreigners enter a new culture, set up a church that resembles the one from back home, and attempt to raise disciples in their own image. Donald A. McGavran (1897-1990), the missionary and scholar who coined this term, criticized the mission-station strategy on the grounds that it is ineffective and inhibits church growth. Although I believe his arguments have merit, I do not consider slow growth to be the main reason why Christians must avoid establishing mission stations. We must avoid doing so because this approach conflicts with what the New Testament teaches about election and undermines the gospel of salvation by grace alone.

Third, it underscores the need for great humility – not a false modesty, but a true acknowledgement of our own spiritual poverty – in the way we do apologetics, evangelism and discipleship.

Paul’s teaching about election leads explicitly to the conclusion that at no point may any Christian individual or group think of themselves as superior to any believer or nonbeliever. This does not mean that there is not a proper time for some to teach and others to learn. Indeed, election means that some are called by God to positions of teaching. But the role of teacher carries a grave responsibility to examine himself to uncover the weaknesses of himself and the group from which he comes. As Paul warned in Romans 2:17-20:

Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and boast in God; if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of little children, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself?

We have no business evangelizing others if we are not simultaneously allowing ourselves to be evangelized by the message we are preaching and by the work of the Holy Spirit among those we are attempting to reach. At no point does evangelism depend on our own effort, faithfulness, righteousness or obedience, because the gospel comes to all not because of our wonderful goodness, but only despite our horrible badness. And if our efforts do not produce the desired result, if the message we preach is rejected, what are we to conclude? Lesslie Newbigin (as quoted by Bosch in Transforming Mission, p. 413) wrote:

I can never be so confident of the purity and authenticity of my witness that I can know that the person who rejects my witness has rejected Jesus. I am witness to him who is both utterly holy and utterly gracious. His holiness and grace are as far above my comprehension as they are above that of my hearer.

In the next, and final, article of this series, I will pick up a question that was left unanswered at the end of part 4: Who decides the ethical implications of th gospel?

I open with these questions as I review King’s Cross (Feb 2011), which is Tim Keller’s new book. The book is adapted from sermons he preached from Mark’s Gospel. (Keller is the senior pastor at Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York.) I was quite impressed and moved by Keller’s presentation and emphasis in his study of Mark’s Gospel, especially in that what he taught as central was not what I had emphasized in my own Bible teaching of Mark’s Gospel. Very briefly, Keller’s emphasis of his Mark’s Gospel study is “Jesus, Jesus, Jesus,” while my emphasis was “You better be like Jesus and SERVE and GIVE YOUR LIFE, you lazy selfish sinner!” Of course, I never said that, but that was my point. Let me explain.

King’s Cross is neatly organized into two parts, corresponding to Mark’s two symmetrical halves or acts:

1. The King (Mark chap 1-8): The identity of Jesus (King over all things)
2. The Cross (Mark chap 9-16): The purpose of Jesus (dying on the cross)

Hence the catchy title from its two parts (“The King” and “The Cross”), each part consisting of 9 chapters, with each chapter focusing on a particular theme by exploring a selective key part of the story told in Mark’s Gospel, explaining the background, illustrating the main point, and applying it for readers. So the book retains the essential elements of good preaching. (But a handful of well-known passages aren’t addressed in detail in the book.) I will not review each chapter of the book, but only selectively address a few points:

The Dance of the Trinity (Mark 1:9-11)

Chap 1, The Dance, identifies the Trinity during the baptism of Jesus: the Father, who is the voice; the Son, who is the Word; and the Spirit, who is the dove (Mark 1:10,11). Keller makes an analogy to the Trinity being present at creation (Gen 1:1-3; John 1:1-3). He ties the story of redemption through Christ with the story of creation in the beginning to show God’s overarching orchestration of God’s plan and purpose in the Bible, as being both a project of the triune God.

Keller titles this chapter The Dance, which is the description of the Trinity used by C.S. Lewis who wrote in Mere Christianity: “In Christianity God is not a static thing…but a dynamic, pulsating activity, a life, almost a kind of drama…a kind of dance.” It is a continual never ending dance of perfect love, submission, deference, humility and service toward the other Persons of the Trinity. Being made in the image of the Trinity, we were created to “dance” around God/others. But our sin causes us to expect others to dance around us, thus breaking relationships. Even among holy Christians in the church (1 Cor 1:2), a leader may expect his members to dance around his directives, while the members may expect the leader to dance around their needs and expectations. Keller’s point is this: “If this world was made by a triune God, relationships of love are what life is really all about.”

Food for thought: Do we preach and teach the Bible by focusing on relationships, or on making sure that I and others carry out our “mission”? Do I “dance” around others in love, or do I expect others to dance to my tune and expectations?

The Gospel (Mark 1:14-15)

In Mark’s Gospel, Jesus’ opening words of declaration to the world concerns “the gospel” (ESV) or “the good news” (NIV) (Mark 1:15). Keller’s repeated emphasis in his previous books, Counterfeit Gods and The Prodigal God, including King’s Cross, is this: “The essence of other religions is advice; Christianity is essentially news.” Do we primarily see the Bible as what God has done for me in Christ (1 Cor 15:3,4) and communicate it to others as such (good news), or do I present the Bible as what I must do and how I should live and what I must believe (advice for right living)?

I acknowledge that it’s not easy, in fact it’s downright difficult, to teach the Bible simply as “good news.” Why? I think it is because when you ask, “What I must do?” in response to the gospel, the answer is basically, “Nothing! Absolutely nothing!” But we’re afraid to say, “Nothing,” thinking that we will be teaching “cheap grace.” But isn’t it true that I can really do nothing for God, for Jesus, and for the Holy Spirit? Yes, God loves me for sure, and yes, he does have stuff for me to do. But God doesn’t really need me to complete Himself (or His mission), as the cute romantic movie line goes, “You complete me.” So, if I succeed in teaching the Bible as good news, not good advice, and my “sheep” realizes by the work of the Holy Spirit that they don’t have to do anything at all, then I have succeeded in proclaiming the gospel as good news. If not, I would have taught them to save themselves through religion by doing good works as their righteousness before God and people. But when one truly realizes that they don’t have to do anything (because Jesus has already done it through the Cross), it is only then that they will WANT to do all things with all their heart (Deut 6:5), for the glory of God (1 Cor 10:31). In the gospel of grace, there is no “I have to,” but “I want to.”

The Call (Mark 1:16-20)

In Jesus’ time, students sought out rabbis whom they wanted to learn from. But Jesus sought out and took the initiative to call his disciples. When teaching Jesus’ calling of his disciples (Mark 1:16-20), I usually press others in some way to respond to God’s calling. But the truth of the matter is that no one can really respond to God’s call unless God himself calls that person (John 6:44, 65). My application is that I should teach the Bible not by pressing others for a response (or for repentance or obedience), but to depend on the Holy Spirit to work in that person’s heart (John 16:8). Then their decision to follow Jesus is not because of my human pressure and “push,” but because of God working in their hearts through his word, and by his Spirit. Then they will understand that God’s call is not primarily up to their response or repentance or obedience, but that it is nothing but sheer grace that God called them.

Authority (Mark 1:21-22)

Perhaps, we throw around phases like “spiritual authority,” as though the one who has it has some kind of advantage, or superiority, or an elevated elite status over others. I never thought of this before, but “authority” comes from the word “author,” where the authority does not come from the man, but from the Source. Thus, Jesus taught with original rather than derived authority.

Therefore, my authority as a Christian should not draw attention to myself as having authority that others in the church should acknowledge or submit to. This causes an unhealthy fear of man (Prov 29:25), rather than a healthy fear of God (Prov 1:7; 9:10). Also, if I do come across as the “head honcho” (God forbid!), it functionally becomes as though a man is the head of the church, and obscures the truth that Jesus is the Head of the church (Col 1:18; Eph 1:22). But my sin is to always default to myself and to expect others to submit to my “spiritual authority” in the church, thus clouding God’s glory. Ultimately, only the Holy Spirit can glorify God and enable man to glorify God (John 17:2).

The Ransom (Mark 10:45)

Whenever I taught Mark 10:45, my emphasis was on Jesus who came to serve, and on Jesus who gave his life. Therefore, you and I, if we are Christians, must likewise serve and give our lives, just as Jesus did. But Keller spent 15 pages of this chapter focusing almost entirely on Jesus as the ransom, the substitutionary sacrifice, the debt that had to be paid, either by us sinners, or by God himself. (David Lovi has written on this in 2 parts: The Necessity of Penal Substitution.)

Practically and functionally, we humans think that the route to gaining influence is to have power and control. We hold the power and control whenever we try to ensure that others work hard, serve, live for their mission, and give their lives for the church and for world mission. It then becomes as though our own power and control is the determining factor that makes the church prosper and grow. But keeping the power and controls is really self-centered leadership, and not trinitarian. Moreover, holding and communicating such power and control really doesn’t change sinner’s hearts. Only Jesus who died as a ransom changes hearts. When Jesus died on the cross, he gave up all power and control; he became the symbol of utter weakness, helplessness and vulnerability. But in this way, and only in this way, are we empowered (Rom 1:16), and our hearts transformed by the Spirit (2 Cor 3:18) with gratitude, love, joy and peace (Gal 5:22,23).

Keller closed King’s Cross with these words: “God made you to love him supremely, but he lost you. He returned to get you back, but it took the cross to do it. He absorbed your darkness so that one day you can finally and dazzlingly become your true self and take your seat at his eternal feast.”

By all means, read the book. If not, check out my summary of each chapter:

Chap 1: The Dance (Trinity) (Mark 1:9-11): Do you expect others to dance around you?
Chap 2: The Gospel, The Call (Mark 1:14-20): Is your gospel good news or good advice?
Chap 3: The Healing (Mark 2:1-5): Are your sins against God or people (Ps 51:4)?
Chap 4: The Rest (Mark 2:23-3:6): Are you desperately seeking significance?
Chap 5: The Power (Mark 4:35-41): Do you enjoy goodness and calm in a storm?
Chap 6: The Waiting (Mark 5:21-43): Do you have peace when God delays?
Chap 7: The Stain (Mark 7:1-23): Do you feel unclean, insignificant?
Chap 8: The Approach (Mark 7:24-37): Do you know you’re a dog, yet loved?
Chap 9: The Turn (Mark 8:27-9:1): Why is forgiveness so hard?
Chap 10: The Mountain (Mark 9:2-29): What if you are filled with doubt?
Chap 11: The Trap (Mark 10:17-27): Is money just money to you?
Chap 12: The Ransom (Mark 10:45): Is Jesus all you want and need?
Chap 13: The Temple (Mark 11:1-18): Are you both a lion and a lamb?
Chap 14: The Feast (Mark 14:12-26): Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb?

Keller might be a contemporary champion of the church in regards to presuppositional apologetics (especially Reason For God), which perhaps we might be weak at as a church. King’s Cross is similarly presented presuppositionally and rationally and persuasively (while assuming nothing or very little). It has countless gems in every chapter, which I have not addressed. I’ve only quite randomly and selectively high lighted a very few points.

Perhaps, through reading this post, might you consider reassessing or tweaking how you have personally understood Mark’s Gospel and taught Mark’s Gospel to others?

Reading Romans to learn about justification by faith is a useful exercise. But it is also helpful to take off those Reformation goggles to see what Paul was actually saying to Roman Christians in the first century. If we do so, then we may find that the central teaching of Romans is not justification by faith. Rather, I believe we will find that the key idea is divine election.

Allusions to election appear in the very first verse: “Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God…” (Ro 1:1). Notice the terms “called” and “set apart.” Paul’s status as an apostle and servant of Christ were not attained by virtue, dedication, hard work, values, character, etc. but were given to him as a gift of pure grace. It was God who called him and set him apart from his fellow Jews to serve the gospel rather than promoting Jewish law, custom and tradition.

Paul was writing to a church that he did not personally found. His letter was intended to give them a rich theological and historical perspective on the gospel, to help them better understand their identity as a mixed congregation of Jewish and Gentile Christians. Comparisons and contrasts between Jews and Gentiles are made throughout the book, in virtually every chapter. Vast differences existed between these two groups with regard to history, culture, lifestyle and conscience. Paul did not want them to ignore those differences, but to pay attention to them, wrestle with them, and understand God’s purpose in bringing these polar opposites together in light of missio Dei.

The thesis of the first half of the book (Chapters 1-8) is that a divine message of salvation has now been revealed, a message that can save Jew and Gentile alike, and that both groups are saved in exactly the same way: through a righteousness that comes by faith (1:16-17). Both groups are sinful and deserving of God’s judgment, but in different ways and for different reasons. Gentiles have fallen into blatant godlessness evidenced by idolatry, sexual immorality, violence, and depravity (1:18-32). Jews have violated God’s covenant with them by breaking the laws that he gave them (2:17-29). Neither group has the right to point a finger of judgment at the other, because neither one is repentant (2:1-5). But Jesus Christ came to save both Jew and Gentile in the same way, granting them righteousness that comes by faith (3:21-26). God’s manner of salvation makes it impossible for anyone to boast (3:27). This gospel of righteousness is not new; it is found in the Old Testament, through the accounts of Abraham and David (chapter 4). Jesus is the new Adam who recreates the entire human race (chapter 5). Anyone who believes Christ is united with him in his death and resurrection, and the risen Christ comes alive in him, giving him a new life (chapter 6). Christians are not bound by law, but have been freed to live by the Holy Spirit. The Spirit accomplishes what the law was powerless to do: bring our dead souls to life, give us victory over sin (chapters 7-8).

Partway through this treatise on the gospel is a defense of the doctrine of election (3:1-8). Paul explains that even though the Jews failed to uphold their covenant, God’s purpose for them did not fail. He hints that human unfaithfulness is foreseen by God and is ultimately used for his glory, but that fact does not absolve anyone of genuine guilt. He picks up this theme again in chapters 9-11, where he wrestles with a subject that for him was intensely personal and painful: the Jews’ overwhelming rejection of the gospel.

If we look to Romans chapters 9-11 to answer all of our questions about Calvinism versus Arminianism, we will be disappointed. Paul was not constructing a theological system. His purpose was limited to making sense of what God had done, was doing, and will do with his chosen people, to help Jewish and Gentile Christians understand their respective positions in God’s redemptive history.

In chapter 9, Paul shares his deep anguish over the Israel’s rejection of the gospel. Despite their glorious spiritual heritage as God’s chosen people, they rejected God’s Messiah. They stumbled over the “stumbling stone,” because they pursued righteousness through the conditional, failed covenant of Mosaic law rather than the unconditional Abrahamic covenant of righteousness by faith. God foresaw all their failure and their future rejection of Christ, yet he patiently bore with them for many centuries because he had a different purpose for them. His purpose was to raise up through them a faithful remnant to carry the gospel to his elect among the Jews, and to use the Jews’ majority rejection of Christ to propel the gospel out to the Gentiles.

In the middle of chapter 9, Paul makes a startling claim. He says that underlying reason why the majority of Jews rejected the gospel is that God hardened their hearts. He compares the Israelites to Pharaoh, of whom it is said numerous times (I counted ten times in Exodus chapters 4-14) that God hardened his heart against the message of Moses. Paul repeats the claim in chapter 11, using references from Deuteronomy 29 and Isaiah 29 to show that “God gave them a spirit of stupor” so that they would reject the message.

Paul’s claim is difficult for us to swallow, because it deeply conflicts with our modernistic notions of fairness, freedom, and autonomy of the individual human person. It was also confusing for Christians in the first century, but for different reasons. It conflicted with their understanding of the Old Testament. How could they reconcile this reasoning with God’s numerous promises to Israel? Had God changed his mind and rejected those whom he had chosen? Paul offered some clarifications to help his readers, and it is useful to examine them even if they do not put to rest all the questions and concerns of 21^st century evangelicals. First, Paul notes that “not all who are descended from Israel are Israel” (9:6). It is not the physical descendents of Abraham who are reckoned as God’s children, but those among them who accepted his promise of blessing. Second, he says that even if God hardens someone’s heart, it does not absolve them of personal responsibility (9:19-21). Third, even though most of the Jews had at present rejected God’s offer, they had not stumbled beyond recovery (11:11). All of God’s promises throughout the Old Testament still stood; his gifts and promises were irrevocable, which led Paul to believe that the hardening of their hearts was temporary. He still hoped that at some point in the future, many of them would eventually come back into a saving relationship with God, because God’s desire was to show mercy to all (11:25-32). Realizing that this is still very difficult to understand, that we do not at present see exactly what God is doing but must trust his judgments, Paul consigns these teachings to the realm of mystery and exclaims, “Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!” (11:33-36).

Editors of the NIV placed Romans 11:25-32 under a section title, “All Israel Will Be Saved.” Some evangelicals believe that all Jews will ultimately receive salvation, and this is tied to various beliefs about the future of the nation of Israel. Although I do not dismiss these theories, I remain skeptical because I do not know the extent to which Paul’s use of the term “Israel” relates to any modern-day ethnic or religious group or geopolitical entity. Like Paul, I am happy to place this in a file cabinet under “mysterious teachings of the Bible.” I don’t know what the future holds for Israel, but I suspect that however it pans out, everyone will be surprised. (That’s why I call myself a pan-millennialist.)

Although Paul doesn’t answer many of our questions about predestination, he does give us a definitive understanding of God’s overall purpose in election, and he does present a “practical application” of this teaching to his first-century readers. He tells them that, whether they are Jews or Gentiles, their acceptance of the gospel did not “depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy” (9:16). The historic covenant of law had to fail prior to the coming of the gospel; if it did not, it would have undermined God’s plan to grant people righteousness by faith alone (9:30-33). If the people of Israel had not rejected Christ, then Jewish missionaries who carried the gospel to the Gentiles could still claim ethnic or religious superiority over the people they were evangelizing. The rejection of the gospel by the Jews underscored the fact that the minority, the remnant who accepted the gospel, were chosen not because of their superior character or effort or achievements but by the grace of God alone (11:1-6). And the Gentiles who received the gospel from the Jewish remnant had no right to boast either, because they too were chosen by grace alone (11:13-21). At no point should anyone in Christ feel smug or self-assured in their salvation. No one in the church has achieved standing before God on the basis any decision they have made or any action that they have taken; their standing has always been by grace alone, and if they deny that, they themselves will be cut off (11:22).

The principle of election should foster in everyone a deep, heartfelt gratitude toward God and humility before other people, as Paul says in the next chapter: “For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you” (12:3). Although we have been saved by faith, the faith itself is a gift from God. Whether we think of ourselves as having weak faith, strong faith, or no faith, no Christian individual or group at any time has any basis for pride over anyone else, because whatever faith they have was distributed to them by God as an undeserved gift.

This understanding of election leads us inevitably to a rule of love, not a rule of law, as the sole ethic of the Christian life. A Christian must not by driven by desire to achieve a superior status or blessing from God on the basis of anything he is or does; such motivations are incompatible with the gospel. The sole motivation for everything we do must be love for God, for our neighbor, and for our enemy (12:9-21). Love is the fulfillment of the law (13:8-10). Christians who understand election will not pass judgment on one another. Those who seem to be “strong” will never judge those who seem “weak,” or vice-versa, because God accepts all regardless of strength or weakness (14:1-22).

And in a stunning reversal of common sense, Paul uses the term “weak” in chapter 14 to refer to Jewish Christians who, because of their consciences, felt compelled to adhere to dietary and religious laws. I’ll bet that those believers did not consider themselves to be weak. From childhood, they had been trained to think of adhering to their laws (which, by the way, were biblically based) as a sign of holiness, discipline and purity. Paul characterized their reliance upon those disciplines as a weakness and freedom from those laws as strength. But he warned those who were free to be mindful of those who were not. He urged everyone not to impose their moral scruples upon one another, but to respect one another’s consciences, to love one another and live in peace as demonstrated by unity-in-diversity.

Historians have called the early Church “a sociological impossibility.” This description is very accurate. There was no human way for Jews and Gentiles, who in so many ways were polar opposites, to come together as friends and form a loving community. But it happened in the first century, and the reason why it happened is found in the book of Romans. Understanding the doctrine of divine election enabled the Jewish and Gentile Christians to embrace their differences and see why God had put them together in the same church.

The word elect simply means “chosen.” In the Old Testament, God chose the people of Israel and made a special relationship with them. If we examine how this choice is portrayed, two aspects are emphasized. First, the Israelites were not chosen because of their inherent goodness; election came to them by grace alone. Second, election did not confer on them any claim of superior status before God. On the contrary, their election placed them in a position of responsibility and servantship toward other nations. Their failure to live up to God’s covenant led to captivity and humiliation, and that should have further prepared them to receive the gospel of salvation by grace.

Election is also a powerful theme throughout the New Testament. We see it in the interaction between Jesus and his disciples. First-century Jewish society had a well developed culture of discipleship. Young men would gather around popular rabbis to learn the Torah with hopes of becoming rabbis themselves. It was always the disciple who chose the rabbi and initiated the relationship. But Jesus turned the tables completely around. He approached young men of his own choosing and commanded them to follow him. Of course, the disciples had to willingly respond. But they were not the initiators. Jesus called, they followed.

When Jesus appointed the Twelve apostles, he chose the ones he wanted (Mark 3:13). Jesus said to the Twelve, “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit…” (John 15:16). When others tried to follow Jesus as the apostles did, Jesus sometimes discouraged them from doing so (Mark 5:19).

Why did Jesus choose these particular men? They had no special education, pedigree or obvious qualifications that set them apart from the rest. They were just regular people from Galilee. It seems that they were chosen specifically because of their ordinariness, to show the world that their election was by grace alone. Even after they were chosen, they did not demonstrate great virtue or faithfulness. Throughout the gospel accounts, their weaknesses are continually laid bare. They abandoned and betrayed Jesus in his hour of need. Their status as apostles was truly undeserved. From start to finish, it was Jesus who bore with them, forgave them and upheld them by grace.

Jesus chose them to be with him and to observe him, and to ultimately become the witnesses of his death and resurrection (Mark 1:14, Acts 1:8). They were to preach the gospel to the whole world (Mark 16:15). Yet Peter, despite his interaction with Cornelius in Acts chapter 10, continued to minister almost exclusively to the Jews (Gal 2:7-8). Peter and the other apostles had great difficulty associating with Gentiles. They had been taught from childhood that Gentile ways were inherently unclean. The idea of preaching a Torah-free gospel seemed alien to them; they just couldn’t envision an authentic Gentile Christian lifestyle.

When the gospel finally broke through to the Gentiles, it happened through the most unlikely person. Saul of Tarsus had distinguished himself among the Pharisees for his ultra-strict keeping of the law (Philippians 3:4-6). He had zealously persecuted the Church because he considered the Christians to be a threat to Jewish religious supremacy. But the risen Christ personally appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus. Jesus chose him to be his instrument to carry his name to the Gentiles, a mission that Saul would never have chosen for himself (Acts 9:15). The calling of Saul, and his transformation into the Apostle Paul, is another powerful picture of God’s election. Once again, it appears that God chose Paul for this task to demonstrate that his gospel comes to all purely by grace.

Examining the flow of God’s salvation history throughout the Old and New Testaments, it becomes unmistakably clear that his salvation comes to individuals and nations not because of the efforts and virtues of God’s human accomplices but despite them. From start to finish, the mission belongs to God, not to people.

The early Christians knew this principle. The Latin word missio, from which we derive mission, was a theological term for the Father sending the Son into the world, and for the Father and Son sending the Holy Spirit. Mission is an intrinsic part of God’s character. In modern times, however, mission has come to be understood as activity that individuals and churches undertake by their own choosing and initiative. All too often, mission is now seen as a human effort to carry the gospel to the lost people of the world.

In the highly acclaimed book Transforming Mission, David Bosch described how Protestant missionary efforts over the last two centuries have been characterized by a spirit of “voluntarism.” This is exactly what one would expect in a historical period marked by industrialization, free enterprise and scientific positivism. Christians spoke of “the evangelization of the world in this generation!” That phrase became the motto of the Student Volunteer Movement (SVM) of the late 19^th century. SVM leaders appeared to be self-confident, singleminded, and triumphant. With great enthusiasm, they recruited and sent out thousands of missionaries throughout the world. This era of missionary activity peaked around the year 1900, when a huge missions conference was held in New York City with over two hundred thousand participants. Speakers at that conference included several Presidents of the United States. Church leaders spoke of mission in militaristic terms. They confidently predicted that within their lifetimes the forces of darkness would be vanquished and the whole world conquered with the gospel, paving the way for Jesus to return.

In the early decades of the 20^th century, however, SVM and other missionary agencies rapidly declined. A proper analysis of why this happened is beyond the scope of this article. To characterize SVM as a failure would be an overstatement. But the organization was not able to fulfill its ambitious goals, and clearly it was not for lack of effort. The heroism, vision and hard work of SVM and similar organizations masked a great deal of organizational weakness. Bosch wrote (p. 333):

People were challenged to go without any financial guarantees, simply trusting that the Lord of mission would provide… No time was left for timorous or carefully prepared advances into pagan territory, nor for the laborious building up of ‘autonomous’ churches on the ‘mission field.’ The gospel had to be proclaimed to all with the greatest speed, and for this there could never be enough missionaries. It also meant that there was neither time nor need for drawn-out preparation for missionary service. Many who went out had very little education or training…

The movement also suffered from theological deficiencies that were not recognized or corrected. Bosch continues:

The weaknesses of the faith mission movement are obvious: the romantic notion of the freedom of the individual to make his or her own choices. And almost convulsive preoccupation with saving people’s souls before Judgment Day, a limited knowledge of the cultures and religions of the people to whom the missionaries went, virtually no interest in the societal dimension of the Christian gospel, almost exclusive dependence on the charismatic personality of the founder, a very low view of the church, etc.

When mission is seen to flow from the personal choice of the missionary who, of his own volition and charitable nature, decides to carry the gospel to lost people, it places the missionary on a moral high ground relative to those he is trying to evangelize. Bosch concludes:

It spawned an enterprise in which the one party would do all the giving and the other all the receiving. This was so because one group was, in its own eyes, evidently privileged and the other, equally evidently, disadvantaged.

The biblical principle of election, however, declares that the one who carries the gospel is in no way superior to the one who receives it. Arrogance, hubris, overconfidence, and a sense of entitlement before God have no place in mission because they are incompatible with the gospel of grace.

In a voluntaristic missionary movement, participation in the mission is regarded as obedience. Of course, the Great Commission was given to the apostles in Matthew 28:18-20 in the form of a command. Shouldn’t we be obeying that command? This reasoning of obedience to Matthew 28:18-20 was applied by William Carey in his famous 1792 tract An Enquiry into the Obligations of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathen. Since that time, Matthew 28:18-20 has maintained a prominent place in the Protestant missionary thinking. It is difficult to argue with this kind of logic. Jesus bids us, “Go,” therefore we must go! If we are not going as missionaries to make disciples of all nations, then aren’t we clearly disobeying Christ?

Bosch points out, however, that the command “go and make disciples” can be properly understood only within the greater context of Matthew’s gospel (Chap. 2). The meaning and requirements of discipleship are laid out by Jesus throughout the book, beginning with the Sermon on the Mount, progressing through many parables about the kingdom of heaven, and so on. If the Great Commission is lifted out of this context and made the sole motivation for missions, the movement that ensues becomes a reduction and distortion of what Jesus intended. Indeed, until the early part of the 19^th century, Protestant missionary literature never relied on obedience to Matthew 28:18-20 as the sole motivator; it was always connected to other biblical motifs. But movements of the SVM era applied the Great Commission with greater frequency and vigor, and by the 20^th century it was often presented as sufficient justification for everything that the movements were doing. “It became a kind of last line of defense, as if the protagonists of mission were saying, ‘How can you oppose mission to the heathen if Christ himself has commanded it?'” (pp. 340-341)

In addition to removing these verses from their proper context, Bosch (p. 341) notes two other problems with the Great Commission as the primary motivator for Christian missions. First, it is almost always used as a polemic. Individuals and churches who do not vigorously proselytize are denounced as watered-down, compromised and disobedient. Second, it takes mission out of the realm of gospel and places it in the realm of law. The Great Commission becomes a rule that must be obeyed if one is to be considered a faithful Christian. But mission in the New Testament did not begin with the apostles sitting down together and discussing how to obey the world mission command. Evangelism began with the “explosion of joy” (Newbigin’s term) emanating from the empty tomb. The apostles’ mission was sealed by their encounters with the risen Christ and empowered by the coming of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. Mission arrived as a gift, not a law. It came to the apostles by divine election through the grace of God alone.

I found that statement pretty interesting, and I have been personally wrestling with this issue for some time. Although many things have already been said in articles and comments on this website, I decide to write a piece about the relationship between mission and sanctification, in order to clarify these things in my own mind.

Mission has been our context for understanding the will of God in the world around us, especially with regard to preaching the gospel, raising disciples and planting new churches. Our understanding of mission is expressed fairly well in how we select passage for our conferences. First we call sinners to repentance through passages about the Samaritan woman, the paralyzed man, and the tax collectors Levi and Zacchaeus. Then we preach on the crucifixion of Jesus and sometimes the resurrection of Jesus. Then we inevitably turn to the Great Commission and passages that speak about our mission as we understand it. But we don’t say much about growing in holiness or walking in Spirit. Thus it is understood that the mission of preaching the gospel and raising disciples becomes the basic purpose and responsibility of our lives.

The mission, understood as I described it above, is truly a great purpose. It is almost a comprehensive motivator for the Christian life. The goal is preaching the gospel around the world and the subjugation of all peoples to faith. There are always people to whom the Gospel has not preached, someone who has not yet received an invitation to discipleship. This desire to reach new people and raise new disciple does provide us with a dynamic life.

The person who truly accepts this sequence — repentance, gospel faith and mission — can no longer see his life apart from this mission. The mission defines his ministry and determines how he treats the people around him, especially if he becomes a leader at any level. With this orientation, life outside of this mission seems pointless and flawed. If we consistently follow this thinking to its logical conclusion, then every part of life which is not dedicated to advancing this mission appears to be waste of time, and all aspects of life should be fully devoted to this mission. For example, the family becomes a house church for the raising disciples. Work becomes a means of self-support for the purpose of raising disciples.

Although we rarely talk about sanctification, we do have a similar notion as we promote continual repentance and spiritual growth. We do struggle against sins of lust, materialism, selfishness, and other things. But this repentance is usually aimed at leaving something that keeps us from carrying out our mission. To repent of selfishness and laziness means to preach more diligently and make more disciples. This kind of spiritual growth leads to greater degree of preparedness and dedication for of the mission (e.g., becoming a better Bible teacher). Our repentance and spiritual growth are designed to serve the mission and thus are secondary to the mission.

Sometimes we do reveal a deeper understanding of spiritual growth. We do want to know God and be more like Him. However, we rarely consider or discuss these apart from the mission. Mission, it is said, is the context in which we come to know God personally and grow in the image of Christ. And participating in the mission is seen as the outward evidence and fruit of knowing. Therefore, our spiritual practices such as prayer, Bible study and church activities are concentrated around the mission and not much else.

Now let’s think about sanctification. What is sanctification’s biblical meaning and value? Perhaps there is a more precise definition, but here I will define sanctification as an increase in holiness. It is to experience gradual emancipation from the domination of the sinful nature remaining in the Christian life, and to progress in accordance with the spiritual nature acquired by new birth.

In Reformed theology, the process of sanctification occupies the entire period between justification (new birth) and glorification of the saint (physical death and resurrection). Sanctification continues throughout the earthly Christian life, and it is easy to understand why this is so. The commandment that we have been given is no less than “Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.” The depravity of the human being is deep and thorough, whereas the holiness of God’s is infinitely high and wide. The goal of being released from sin and bringing your life into conformity with the holiness of God is so voluminous and ambitious that even if we were to live a thousand years, that would not be enough time to complete it, even though it would move us closer to the goal.

Who can say, “I’m holy enough?” Who can say, “I know God quite well and now am close to Him?” Who among the saints has no craving and necessity to be sanctified more? The Apostle Peter wrote, “But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do” (1Pe 1:15, NIV). Sanctification is a process that touches every single aspect of human life. If we are in Christ, then sanctification should be happening through and through. We are being sanctified in our thoughts. We are being sanctified in all our dealings with all people near and far, with believers and nonbelievers. We are being sanctified in the workplace, at home, in the church, and everywhere in between. We are being sanctified when we eat and drink, sanctified when we read books, sanctified when we are using the internet.

The process of sanctification requires constant spiritual warfare. If we are serious about our sanctification, then we find a considerable need for prayer, studying God’s word, learning from the Christian experience, communication with other believers, consultation with elders, reading books, and so on.

Sanctification is warfare, but it is also a sweet process of knowing God, being transformed into his image and displaying his glory to world. It is the process that the Holy Spirit is continually doing in us. The process is monumental. It fills the whole duration of life and gives meaning and beauty to all its spheres. Sanctification is sufficient to guide us and provide dynamic development for the individual, the church and society.

Can sanctification be regarded as secondary or subordinate to mission? In my opinion, the answer is no. Sanctification is the direct will of God. It has intrinsic value in itself. God called Israel to be a holy people in the land to which he was leading them. He gave him the law as a standard of holiness. Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, which is often called “the constitution of the kingdom of heaven,” is all about holiness. In 1 Peter 2:9, the apostle called all Christians to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation, to proclaim God’s perfection through their words and their lives. And then, in the remainder of 1 Peter, he shows us what that entails: to be holy in every respect, to follow the nature of Christ, to learn to live a holy lives in society, the workplace, family and church. Sanctification is found in so many places throughout the Bible.

No, I do not think that sanctification may be subordinated to mission. But the two are related. Sanctification contributes to the execution of the mission, and it is also produced through participation in the mission. It seems to me that mission must be subject to sanctification. As I mentioned above, Peter wanted the recipients of his letter to be holy in all respects – not to simply avoid sin, but to actively grow in holiness. And Peter is the first one to whom Jesus entrusted his mission. He is the one to whom Jesus said, “Feed my sheep.” When Jesus gave Peter and the other apostles the Great Commission, he said, “…and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you” (Mt 28:20). The Apostle Paul described his mission thusly: “We proclaim him, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone perfect in Christ” (Col 1:28). The sanctification of all people is an integral purpose of the mission.

Mission and sanctification are closely related, but they are not interchangeable. To make sanctification subordinate to mission will inevitably distort both of them.

According to the Great Commission, the mission of the apostles was to preach the gospel and raise disciples. If we understand the task purely in terms of replication – making disciples just for the sake of getting them to preach the gospel and make more disciples, who will then continue to preach and make disciples and so on, until the coming of Christ – then what has become of Christianity? Everything gets reduced to having a saving faith in Christ and living a lifestyle most conducive to continuing this cycle.

Can all of Christianity be reduced to these two steps of having saving faith in Christ and then adopting a mission-centered lifestyle? Or is there something more fundamental that God wants to accomplish in us? Preaching the gospel and making disciples is an outward manifestation of our faith. But these are not effective or pleasing to God apart from the inner reality of holiness. It is the inner fruit that prepares, enables and equips us for the mission.

To clarify what I am trying to say, consider these two alternatives. Do I grow spiritually in order to make disciples? Or do I make disciples in order to grow spiritually? To ask these questions reveals a misunderstanding. Being a disciple or growing as a disciple is no different from spiritual growth. Whether we say, “Grow as disciple to make disciples” or “Make disciples to grow as disciple,” in the end it’s the same thing. Whether we say, “Be a Christian to make Christians” or “Make Christians in order to grow as a Christian,” this definition of the Christian life becomes empty. It becomes a vicious cycle, devoid of content. All that remains is wandering in the darkness and lead others into the same darkness.

It is only when we restore sanctification to its proper place that everything begins to make sense. After justification, we must follow Christ and learn to live a Christian life. Christian character and values have their own intrinsic worth apart from mission. God conforms us to these values through the process of sanctification and then we pass these values on to others. Jesus’ words “Go and make disciples” should not be construed as “Making others capable of performing the same mission.” Rather, it is as Jesus said,” Teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you,” to restore them to completeness.

If we fail to give due attention to sanctification, then our faith becomes shallow and insipid. Moreover, the mission that we are trying to carry out loses its fundamental meaning and purpose. Focusing too heavily on the mission eventually begins to harm the mission. Evangelism and discipleship become less meaningful and reminiscent of network marketing.

I will conclude with a personal testimony to explain how these reflections grew out of my experience. For several years I was a fellowship leader, serving a student mission on campus. We regularly visited the campus, prayed, shouted slogans, sang songs, went into the dorms, preached the gospel and invited students. We were very active. This life was interesting, dynamic and sensational. There was always room to go out and preach more. There were long lists of potential sheep for whom we should pray. There were those who came and we prayed for them to change and grow. We were always inviting someone, somewhere. Overall it was a fun time, and I thank God for it.

Later, however, I became the leader of a ministry in a village where our church was located, and I served there until it left one year ago to pioneer in another place. Many interesting things happened, but I will make just one observation. In the village, a lot of people came to us. They were not like university students. They were men and women with various problems, dependencies and sinful habits. We proclaimed to them salvation in Jesus, but it was obvious that we could not make them conform to our mission plan. We couldn’t just tell them to write a testimony, repent and go out to preach and make disciples. Although it was clearly impossible to do that, I struggled to come up with a plan that was different and more suitable to them. I did not know how to organize a living and dynamic ministry that was not based on an ethic of constant missionary expansion. I even began to think that without a strong focus on evangelism and sending of missionaries, we could not be a church or educate anyone or help anyone. The problem was my poor understanding of Christianity. I did not know how to show people that, when we surrender to Christ, the conversion works in all spheres of our present lives. I did not realize the importance of sanctification in my own life or its relationship to mission, and I could not teach it in to the people who came to us. They needed to be instructed in sanctification, and mission could not fill that role.

God cares about relationships. When Jesus ascended to heaven, he didn’t leave behind a book of writings. He left behind a community of witnesses who were filled with the Holy Spirit and entrusted the preaching of the gospel to them (Acts 1:8). As members of this community proclaim the gospel, they invite others to become part of God’s family where their true personhood will be realized. That family is not equivalent to a church organization. It is the body of all people who belong to Christ, the “communion of saints” that is mentioned in the Apostles’ Creed. Evangelism that fails to call people to join this body is alien to the New Testament. Jesus never intended his disciples to be lone wolves. Nor did he intend them to live in small, isolated, parochial clans whose members remain suspicious of everyone on the outside (Mk 9:38-40). He prayed for all his followers to be one, to experience among themselves the loving oneness that has with his own Father in a highly visible way, so that the whole world would see that the gospel is true (John 17:20-23).

So the preaching of the gospel is not just passing a set of teachings from one person to another; it is knitting persons together in grace to heal them, their families, their communities, and the world of the relational brokenness caused by sin. The healing that we experience now through the work of the Holy Spirit is the downpayment, the foretaste, of the full restoration that will be enacted when Jesus returns in power and glory. The present signs of the kingdom, our miraculously restored relationships with God and with one another, are the evidence and the engine of true evangelism.

If God’s plan to restore relationships requires that the gospel be spread from one person to another, one community to another, and one nation to another, then someone has to begin that process. Certain persons, communities and nations must be chosen to receive the gospel and bear it to others. That is the key idea of election as described by Paul in Romans 9-11.

Election wasn’t invented by Paul. It is the storyline of the Old Testament. Out of all nations, God called one nation, the Israelites, for his special purpose. He shaped their history through divine intervention and revelation, preparing them to be the first ones to welcome the Messiah.

In chapter 7 of The Open Secret, Lesslie Newbigin starts his discussion of election by reminding us of how offensive it sounds to nonbelievers, especially today. The idea that certain individuals and cultures have received special, unique knowledge from the Creator — the one who is Maker of all, whose image is borne by every human being – seems ludicrous. It is especially hard to believe, given that the people who were chosen were not outstanding among the great civilizations of the world; they hardly distinguished themselves by their achievements, scholarship, or virtuous lives. If God cares for all, as we believers claim, then why would he heap special treatment on some, on a small minority of people who do not appear to deserve it?

Election is patently offensive to every generation and culture. If a stranger arrives from a foreign land claiming to have special knowledge of universal truth, that claim is enough to make natives cry, “Missionary, go home!” How do we handle with this thorny problem? First, we should openly acknowledge that it is a problem. Second, we must understand that God’s election was never intended to set one person above another, one group above another, one culture above another. Election does not confer any moral privilege or special standing before God. In fact, the manner in which election unfolds throughout history makes it absolutely clear that salvation comes by grace alone, not through the intrinsic goodness or special qualities of any person or group. Never at any point in God’s history do his elect have any claim to special treatment by him because of their obedience, effort or virtue. The blessings received by the elect never come to them because of their wonderful goodness, but only despite their horrible badness.

When God called Abraham, he said: “Leave your country, your people and your father’s household and go to the land I will show you. I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing” (Gen 12:1-2). It is tempting to read this statement as conditional: “If you leave and go, then I will bless you. If you don’t, I will not bless you.” But the blessing is not conditioned on Abraham’s response. God simply announces that he will be blessed, and God invites him to go and see the evidence of that blessing. Abraham does not earn the promise; his obedience is the way that he receives the promise.

The author of Genesis makes it clear that Abraham had no intrinsic virtues that set him above other people. When he went down to Egypt, he acted dishonestly. He appears less honorable than Pharaoh, and yet God rescued and blessed him (Gen 12:10-20). Again, in chapter 20, Abraham is less righteous than Abimelech, but God chose to bless him anyway. This favoritism toward Abraham has a universal purpose: God intends to bless all nations on earth through him (Gen 12:3).

About 430 years later, God made a special agreement with the Israelites at Mount Sinai. This covenant is described in Exodus 19:5-6: “Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” Unlike the covenant of promise that God made to Abraham, this covenant of law is very conditional. If the Israelites obeyed God fully, then they would receive his special blessings. This covenant of law did not amend, change or supersede the covenant of promise that God gave earlier (Gal 3:17). God’s declarations to Abraham stood regardless of what the Israelites chose to do.

In an article posted last month, David L. correctly noted that Exodus 19:5-6 is a promise made to Israel, not to the Church. Christians who apply these verses to themselves are taking the passage out of context. The covenant described in Exodus 19:5-6 is a failed covenant and was doomed to fail from the start. Even before Moses came down from the mountain, the Israelites had already broken the agreement by worshipping the golden calf (Ex 32). A literal application of Exodus 19:5-6 to ourselves would lead us to believe that if we obey God’s commands, then God will bless us and our nation. If so, then we must not ignore the word fully. The obedience required by this covenant is complete obedience to the law of Moses, all 600 commands, because anyone who places himself under the law is obligated to obey it in its entirety (Gal 5:3).

The covenant of law failed because the Israelites willfully disobeyed. But God, in his sovereign purpose, used their disobedience to demonstrate that, though they were the chosen people, they were no better than anyone else. The division of their kingdom, the destruction of their temple, and their captivity in Babylon should have produced in them a deep humiliation that paved the way for the message of salvation by grace alone. This humiliation of failure, combined with the knowledge of God’s saving grace through Jesus, should have given them an openminded and generous spirit required of missionaries. God was preparing them to go to other nations and say, “We are no better than you. We are not coming with superior strength, wisdom, or moral standards. We were and still are deeply sinful and broken, and in many ways you are better than us. But God, for reasons that we do not understand, walked among our people and revealed to us something about his great salvation plan. We witnessed God’s redemption firsthand through the death and resurrection of his Son. Now we are experiencing his work of restoration. God wants to repair our relationship with you. We are your brothers and sisters, not your elders. We are not attempting to rule over you or change you into Jews like us. We will respect you, accept you and love you as you are, because that is what God has done for us; that is the essence of the gospel. We believe that the Holy Spirit is already hovering over you, working in mysterious ways that we cannot yet understand, and we hope to learn from you what God has been doing among you. We encourage you to respond to the Spirit’s invitation and become equal partners with us in this glorious work of restoration.”

That is the character that God wanted to instill in his chosen people. And, to an extent, that is what happened in the generations leading up to Christ, especially among the Hellenistic Jews scattered across the Empire. While they kept their laws and traditions, they also spoke Greek, and they began to mingle and develop meaningful relationships with the Gentiles around them. Their synagogues began to attract God-fearing Greeks who, for good reason, did not submit to circumcision but nevertheless loved the Lord. Many Hellenistic Jews developed an open and tolerant spirit as exemplified by Stephen and Philip in Acts chapters 6-8.

But in and around Jerusalem, the opposite was happening. In the years leading up to Christ, the rabbinical schools heightened the distinctions between clean and unclean, narrowing the popular conceptions of who was going to be saved. God’s salvation was no longer for all Israel; those were seen as worldly and compromised, such as the tax collectors and public sinners, were excluded. As Pharisees trended toward rigid interpretations and practices of the law, those considered to be elect became fewer and more distant from the rest. And the Essenes, who became so strict in their practices that they considered the Pharisees to be impure, formed monastic communities and withdrew to the caves at Qumran. They labeled everyone outside of their community as “Breakers of the Covenant.”

As these groups increasingly staked their identity and self-worth on the keeping of their traditions and laws, their expectations for the coming Messiah turned toward validation and reward for the elect, combined with punishment for anyone who oppressed or opposed them in any way. The enemies of the Jews were seen as the enemies of God, destined for enslavement or destruction. The late missiologist David J. Bosch (Transforming Mission, p. 19-20) explained:

As the political and social conditions of the people of the old covenant deteriorate, there increasingly develops the expectation that, one day, the Messiah will come to conquer the Gentile nations and restore Israel. This expectation is usually linked with fantastic ideas of world domination by Israel, to whom all the nations will be subject. It reaches its peak in the apocalyptic beliefs and attitudes of the Essene communities along the shores of the Dead Sea. The horizons of apocalyptic belief are cosmic: God will destroy the entire present world and usher in a new world according to a detailed and predetermined plan The present world, with all its inhabitants, is radically evil. The faithful have to separate themselves from it, keep themselves pure as the holy remnant, and wait for God’s intervention. In such a climate even the idea of a missionary attitude toward the Gentile world would be preposterous… At best God would, without any involvement on the part of Israel, by means of a divine act, save those Gentiles he had elected in advance.

Ironically, the religion of the Jews hardened into keeping of laws and traditions which, although apparently based on the Old Testament, ignored the actual flow of OT history. Their faith became increasingly focused on right principles and practices rather than on right relationships with God and other people. Bosch continues (p. 20):

To a large extent Jewish apocalyptic spells the end of the earlier dynamic understanding of history. Past salvific events are no longer celebrated as guarantees and anticipations of God’s future involvement with his people; they have become sacred traditions which have to be preserved unchanged. The Law becomes an absolute entity which Israel has to serve and obey. Greek metaphysical categories gradually begin to replace historical thinking. Faith becomes a matter of timeless metahistorical and carefully systematized teaching.

When Jesus arrived on the scene around 27 A.D., he overturned the popular understanding of election by declaring God’s unconditional saving grace to all Israel, especially those who were marginalized and considered impure. He elected the Twelve to represent pillars of a new chosen people who would embody the gospel and convey it to the nations. But just as the rest of Israel had difficulty embracing the Gentiles, so did the apostles and the early Church. As much as Peter and his fellow church members had to evangelize the nations, they themselves had to be re-evangelized by the nations, by seeing and fully accepting the work of Christ in Gentile believers who were different from them. God’s election does not give anyone a superior status. His election is designed to show the world that, from first to last, salvation comes to all by grace alone.

If you have read my previous articles, then I hope you are becoming convinced that what Christians think about the Holy Spirit really does matter.

But perhaps you are wondering, “What’s all this fuss about the Holy Spirit?” We do, after all, identify ourselves as Christ-ians or followers of Christ. Shouldn’t our attention be focused on Jesus, on trusting, following and imitating him?

The Bible tells us a whole lot about Jesus. The story of his life is told four times by four different gospel writers, and the events of the gospels are thoroughly interpreted and explained in the Epistles.

By comparison, the Bible says much less about the Holy Spirit, and he is difficult to pin down. The Spirit is mysterious, unpredictable, and beyond our human understanding.

If we call ourselves Christians, then shouldn’t we just concentrate on Jesus and let the Holy Spirit do what he wants? Shouldn’t we mainly focus on the gospels and work on our “personal relationship with Christ”?

In certain respects, that’s not a bad idea. The kingdom of God is centered on Jesus. We (the Church) are his bride, and he is our true husband, the subject of our love and desire and worship.

On the other hand, we are not living in the age of the four gospels. We are living in the biblical period between Jesus’ ascension and second coming. When Jesus ascended into heaven, he relinquished control of his earthly ministry to the Holy Spirit. In effect, Jesus looked to the Holy Spirit and said, “Hey bro, it’s your turn now. Take care of things until I come back.” Okay, Jesus probably didn’t call him bro. But that’s beside the point.

The point is that we are now living in the age of the Holy Spirit. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the Church is the major fact of this period that defines who we are and how we relate to God.

One reason why some Christians are hesitant to say much about the Holy Spirit is this: Some of what people claim to be the Spirit’s guidance and work is not genuine and really doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. For example, consider the practice of publicly speaking in tongues where the speech (which is a string of nonsense syllables – and I don’t mean to be pejorative here) is regarded as a divinely inspired message, and then one or more “interpreters” translate what is being said. If this message-from-God claim were true, then shouldn’t different interpreters come up with the same translation? Experiments have been performed where audio recordings of glossolalia (the technical term for speaking in tongues) are independently presented to multiple interpreters, and the translations they offer are not even close.

J.I. Packer, in his excellent book Keep in Step With the Spirit, describes an Ethiopian priest who went to a multicultural prayer meeting and heard people speaking in tongues. He assumed that these people were praying in their own native languages. Deciding to join in, he stood up and recited Psalm 23 in an archaic Coptic language of his native church. Interpreters immediately translated what he said, and he walked away in bewilderment, saying, “It was all wrong.”

Please do not misunderstand. I am not claiming that glossolalia and all other charismatic phenomena are fake or wrong. Personally, I have never prayed in tongues and have not desired to do so. But many faithful Christians (including some UBF members) do. From what I have heard, it is rarely an experience in which people are seized by an external force and made to do something that is completely outside of their control. In most cases, it is more like a technique of “letting go” that can be learned and practiced, and the person who is doing it can start and stop at will. People who do this claim that it heightens their awareness of God and helps them to pray in a deeper way for longer periods of time. In that sense, it is not entirely different from other practices of meditation and divine contemplation that have appeared in Christian communities throughout the ages. I believe that whenever and wherever Christians draw near to God and pray in the name of Jesus Christ, then the Holy Spirit is working among them. So in that sense, I would say that most charismatic prayer and tongue-speaking does represent the authentic work of the Holy Spirit. But I do not believe that this Spirit-work among charismatics is unusually miraculous or fundamentally different from what happens among non-charismatic Christians when they worship and pray. (This is what I think: Prayer is extremely hard. Whenever a Christian is able to deeply and effectively pray, then that in itself is a great miracle.)

So although I think that many charismatic phenomena do represent genuine work of the Holy Spirit, I also think that they are often misunderstood and misinterpreted by those who participate in them and those who observe them.

When evidence or claims about the Holy Spirit are being presented, we should not automatically become dismissive or overly skeptical or critical. The Holy Spirit is real and works among Christians in surprising and sometime miraculous ways. The Body of Christ is diverse, and the Spirit’s work in some parts of the Body may look very strange to other parts of the Body. But we also need to test these claims and separate the wheat from the chaff. Paul wrote in 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22:

Do not put out the Spirit’s fire; do not treat prophecies with contempt. Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil.

So how can we test an activity to see whether it is the genuine work of the Spirit? The criteria that some Christians apply are rooted in sectarianism, prejudice and competition. We may be quick to assume that the Holy Spirit is with us in everything we do simply because our church is “biblically correct.” At the same time, we may dismiss what is happening in other communities because it doesn’t jibe with our own experiences and violates our assumptions about what the work of the Holy Spirit should look like.

Here is a criterion that some have offered: The Holy Spirit will never do anything that is contrary to Scripture. I do believe that this is true. But notions of what constitutes “scriptural” and “unscriptural” vary widely from one community to another. The disputes over glossolalia are a good example of this; Christians hold different positions on speaking in tongues, and they all support their positions with Bible verses. Although Christians widely agree on the big issues regarding the Holy Spirit (he is a person; he is God), there is plenty of disagreement about when he comes, how he works, etc., and part of Scripture that speak to these issues are truly difficult to understand.

In Keep in Step with the Spirit, J.I. Packer notes that evangelical Christians have many good and biblically supportable ideas about the Holy Spirit, but we seem to lack the big picture, the overarching theme of his ministry that clearly states what he came to do. So Packer offers a solution. Focusing in what Jesus said John 16:13-15, he states that the ministry of the Holy Spirit is centered on Jesus Christ. The Spirit never promotes himself or draws people to himself. His purpose is to further the Father’s pleasure by glorifying the Son. While the ascended Jesus is enthroned in heaven, the Spirit will work to proclaim the gospel of Jesus, to draw people to faith in Jesus, to help us to obey Jesus, to promote the knowledge, adoration and love of Jesus – in short, to make it possible for us to have a vital relationship with Jesus until he returns in power and glory. Wherever Jesus Christ is being followed, proclaimed, worshiped and glorified, the Holy Spirit is present to actively direct and support that work.

If what Packer says is correct, then the major test that we should apply is this: In this particular gathering or activity, is the reputation, purpose, and love of Jesus Christ being promoted? If so, then it is an authentic work of the Holy Spirit.

In this article, I will try to uncover some of these assumptions and demonstrate that they really do matter. Try asking yourself the following questions.

1. How does the Holy Spirit bring about personal holiness? Does he usually (a) take away our inclination to sin and make us want to obey God, or (b) expect us to struggle against the sinful nature, perhaps helping us out from time to time, until we overcome temptation and experience victory?

If you instinctively answer (a), you might develop a casual or passive attitude toward sin, waiting around until you are “healed” instead of gritting your teeth and waging war against the enemy within. On the other hand, if your answer is (b), you might end up trying to depend on yourself and live out your faith by your own effort, which is in general a losing proposition. And you might interpret others’ weaknesses as failure due to lack of effort without really knowing how hard they are trying. I don’t think there is a correct answer here. It is easy to find Bible verses to “prove” either one. Sometimes the Spirit does (a) and sometimes he does (b). But how often does he do (a) versus (b)? It seems to me that, whichever position you gravitate toward, there will be long-term implications for how you interact with God on a daily basis and how you view yourself and others.

2. How does the Holy Spirit work in evangelism? Does he usually (a) seek people and draw them into encounters with believers who can present the gospel message to them, or (b) commission disciples and send them out to vigorously declare the gospel message to an unbelieving world?

Once again, I believe that the Spirit does both. But which one does he do more often? If you tend to think (a), then your participation in evangelism (if you participate at all) might be halfhearted and passive. If you ascribe to (b), then you might look and act like a gung-ho soldier of Christ, but to what effect? In the evangelical world, there are many self-styled evangelists whose efforts prove unfruitful and even counterproductive because they preach Christ at inappropriate times and in inappropriate ways with little understanding or sensitivity.

3. How does the Holy Spirit act within the organizational structure of a church? Does he primarily (a) direct the body though its leaders and elders, whom we can safely assume are being led by the Holy Spirit by virtue of their seniority and their elected or appointed offices? Or does he (b) offer no special consideration to elders and leaders and frequently bypass them to accomplish his purposes?

The answers to this question could vary enormously across denominations and cultures. In my opinion, the most correct and healthy response is to say that the Holy Spirit does both on a regular basis. For this reason, leaders and members need real discernment to understand how the Spirit is working among them at any given time. And whether you or your church leans toward (a) or (b), I hope that you maintain an open mind and humbly allow the Holy Spirit to continually challenge your view .

4. Do the gifts given by the Holy Spirit to individual people for service in the church usually (a) coincide with their natural talents, abilities and desires or (b) represent an out-of-the-ordinary or even supernatural display, allowing them to perform in ways that they would never otherwise want to do or be able to do?

By now, you probably know what I am going to say. I think that the Holy Spirit does both. And whether you lean toward (a) or (b), there can be positive and negative implications either way.

5. What is the Holy Spirit’s relationship to Scripture? Did he (a) inspire the human authors to write the original manuscripts in the Hebrew and Greek languages and then essentially stop working? Or did he (b) continue to work down through the ages through the entire process by which the teachings in the Bible were spoken, written down, collected, canonized, preserved, translated and retranslated, studied and restudied, interpreted and reinterpreted?

In the past, I would have probably answered (a), but I hadn’t seriously thought about it. There are many who claim to hold a “high view” of Scripture who tend toward (a) because they don’t know much about the process by which the canon was established, or because they do know something about that process and it looks embarrassingly messy, controversial, and downright human. Some would like to imagine that the Bible was simply handed down to us from heaven with no human input, just as God handed the stone tablets to Moses on Mt. Sinai. Any hint of subjective human judgment in the process by which the Bible came to exist would open a huge can of worms and appear to undermine biblical authority. But even if we ignore that process and just look at the text itself, we find that the Bible is a rather messy book. Some events are described multiple times from different points of view, and the details of these accounts do not always agree. If the Bible is a perfect and infallible text, then it can only be so by definitions of perfection and infallibility that are different from what we mean when we use those terms in ordinary language. (For example, the Bible contains a fair amount of poetry. What does it mean for a poem to be infallible?)

If you answer (a), then your main goal in Bible study may be to get back to the “original intent” and understand it from the author’s point of view. There is a lot of merit to that approach. Understanding the author’s intent is part of any serious study of Scripture. But original intent can only take us so far, and Christians do need to go beyond that, especially when we look at the Old Testament. The Old Testament is full of events, commandments, ceremonies, and imagery that we believe were fulfilled in Jesus Christ. When Christians study Old Testament passages, we find ourselves departing substantially from the author’s original intent; if we do not, then it becomes difficult or impossible to make the passages relevant to what we now believe and do. Reinterpreting the Old Testament in light of the gospel is something that Jesus and the apostles did on a regular basis.

Now when we come to the New Testament, can we continue to apply that same approach? Are we free to depart from the author’s original intent and apply the scriptures in new ways to modern-day situations that the apostles never envisioned? Once again, I think that we must do so, but with greater caution. If we refuse to try, we may find ourselves attempting to “get back to the first century” and live just like those early Christians did, which in the present world is truly impossible. And even if it were possible, it would be unwise, because the Holy Spirit is not stuck in the first century; he continues to move on and work in new ways in every generation. Yet if we do this carelessly, we might begin to tolerate beliefs and practices that depart from God’s will and are truly unorthodox. The present debate in mainline churches about homosexuality is a good example. There are many sincere (and, I think, wrongheaded) Christians who believe that the Holy Spirit is leading the Church to bless same-sex relationships.

There are dangers that should not be ignored if we take position (b). But if we lean too heavily toward (a), we may stifle real work of the Holy Spirit and make ourselves and our churches irrelevant.

Whatever you think about the questions raised – and I do not claim to know all the answers – you have to admit that they are important. Our assumptions about the Holy Spirit shape what we think the authentic work of God looks like, how we think a church should operate, how we pray, how we worship, how we speak of our faith and how we evangelize. The earthly ministry of the Son is thoroughly described in the four gospels. But the earthly ministry of the Holy Spirit which began in Acts is still going on; new chapters are continually being written.

Does what we know about the Holy Spirit matter? Yes, it does. A healthy relationship to the Holy Spirit — and we cannot have a meaningful relationship with someone whom we know nothing about — enables us to grow in faith and be useful instruments of God in this world. But ideas about him that are sloppy, off-balance or wrong may prevent individuals and churches from growing to maturity and stifle the Spirit’s work among them. Make no mistake: the Holy Spirit can be quenched (1Th 5:19). The Spirit can be lied to, sinned against, and blasphemed, and the consequences of doing so can be dire (Ac 5:3; Mk 3:29; Lk 12:10).

And you ought to agree that the Holy Spirit is God. On that point, Scripture is very clear. For example, in Acts 5:3, Peter said, “Ananias,… you have lied to the Holy Spirit.” One verse later, Peter adds, “You have not lied to men but to God.”

Many sincere and devout believers talk about “the secret of living a Spirit-filled life.” We want to experience the Spirit’s power. We want our pastors to deliver Spirit-filled messages. We want to have Spirit-filled worship, Spirit-filled Bible studies, Spirit-filled prayer, and so on. All of this is well and good. But overuse of this language can depersonalize and disrespect the third Person of the Trinity. The Holy Spirit is not a quality or condiment that enhances our efforts and activities. The Holy Spirit is God himself. Instead of looking for that secret ingredient, we ought to be asking, “Where is the Holy Spirit moving, and how can I walk in step with him? How can I relinquish control of my activities and life to him?”

How we speak of the Holy Spirit really does matter. John Wesley was an eminent preacher and theologian of the 18^th century, a man who was greatly used by God during the first Great Awakening. He developed a teaching of “scriptural holiness” that was not well received during his lifetime. A century later, a small group of Christian preachers and writers latched on to this teaching and vigorously promoted it as “the secret” of the victorious Christian life. Wesley occasionally spoke of a “second blessing” that comes upon some believers. One of his successors, John Fletcher, developed this idea further and equated it with baptism by the Holy Spirit. Fletcher began to speak of conversion as a two-step process. In the first step, the person believes in Jesus Christ and receives from God the full remission of sin. In the second step – which may happen some time later or perhaps not at all – the person receives the second blessing of the Holy Spirit which brings him to a fuller and more perfect state of purity. This thinking contributed to a number of movements in Britain and the United States –the Keswick “Higher Life” movement, the Holiness movement, and Pentecostalism – and God used the men and women involved to bring about genuine spiritual growth and revival.

But the modern-day legacy and fruit of the Wesleyan/Fletcher teaching on the Holy Spirit is mixed. Scholars of the Reformed tradition have criticized this thinking as imprecise, sloppy and unscriptural, and it seems to me that those criticisms are valid. It is true that the apostles experienced the blessing of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, which came some time after they believed in the risen Christ. A temporal separation between faith in Jesus and the arrival of the Holy Spirit is also mentioned in the “Samaritan Pentecost” of Acts 8:17. But these appear to be unique events that are not repeated later, and the two-stage view of conversion is not supported in the Epistles. In Paul’s presentation of the gospel, the state of belonging to Christ is equivalent to being indwelt by the Holy Spirit (Ro 8:9).

I know that God sometimes pours out the Holy Spirit on disciples of Christ. He can fill them with the Holy Spirit anytime he chooses (Ac 4:31). He can send a second blessing, a third blessing, a fourth blessing and so on, but he doesn’t have to. On the other hand, Scripture is quite clear that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a general promise given to everyone who follows Jesus (Jn 7:37-39; Ac 2:39). Understanding this does have implications for your personal walk of faith. If you think of conversion as a two-stage process, then you may hunger for that “second blessing” and wonder why it doesn’t come. Two-stage thinking will inevitably set up a two-tiered hierarchy within a church in which some believers are considered to be Level-1 Christians, inferior to their brothers and sisters who have achieved the coveted Level-2 status. I find no support for this anywhere in Scripture, and the potentially harmful effects seem obvious.

Basically, this is what I think happened. John Wesley witnessed authentic outpourings of the Holy Spirit at various times and places. But he and his followers did not accurately reconcile those experiences with the teachings of Scripture; they misunderstood what was happening and generalized from those experiences in inappropriate ways.

At one time or another, I think we have all been guilty of that. Someone may experience God’s transforming work (e.g., a healing) in his own life. Because that experience is so genuine and powerful, he begins to think that this experience is normative – what “should happen” in other times and places – and wants this work to be reproduced elsewhere. So he begins to tell other Christians that they too can experience just what he did if they only believe, if they only ask God in prayer, and so on. Scriptures do promise that miraculous things will happen in the lives of believers (Mk 16:18), but nowhere does the Bible say that the Holy Spirit must do exactly what we want or expect at any given moment. To teach this is to disrespect the personhood and freedom of the Holy Spirit. To teach this is to give in to temptation to put God to the test (Mt 4:5-7).

Or suppose that a ministry experiences dramatic growth through an outpouring of the Holy Spirit in a particular place and time. Leaders of the movement may conclude that similar things ought to happen on a regular basis. Worse yet, they may begin to believe that they are somehow better, purer, holier, more prayerful than other churches and ministries that did not share the experience. They may take it as “proof” that their particular ministry methods (which may have been appropriate in the original setting) are inherently superior, and then press forward in uncritically applying those same methods in other cultural settings where the Spirit wants to work differently. The temptation for organizations to do this can be overwhelming. But it is not scriptural. Eventually it may become a negation of the gospel. Salvation comes to everyone by the sovereignty of God and by his grace alone, not by the inherent specialness of any evangelists’ practices, methods or style. The gospel does not need adornment. The message, the reality, of Jesus Christ and his kingdom is sufficient to bring revival whenever, wherever, through whomever, and by whatever means the Spirit chooses to work.

An honest study of the history of Christian revivals will show that every outpouring of the Holy Spirit was also accompanied by mistakes, excesses and problems in the church that needed to be addressed and corrected by future generations. The fact that this is so does not devalue the message or the work that was done. If it were not so, then it would be a contradiction of the truth that at the foot of the cross, the ground is level. All of us, without exception, stand on the same plane. We are all sinners before God, and salvation comes to all by grace alone, not by grace plus some special, secret ingredient.

The paths and circumstances by which people come to faith in Christ and grow in Christ are truly varied. The Holy Spirit works differently in different people and in the life of a person at different times. He works differently across churches, cultures and generations. Whenever we try to put him in a box and say that this is how he must work, he seems to go out of his way to prove us wrong. We ought to recognize, welcome and applaud the genuine work of the Holy Spirit whenever and wherever we see it. But we should also be extra careful before we claim that any particular work of the Spirit is how it’s always supposed to be.

In the next article, I will describe some other ways that our beliefs and assumptions about the Holy Spirit will profoundly impact our lives of faith. Stay tuned…

One defining moment in Christian history came in 1054 A.D. in an event known as the Great Schism, when the Church split into Eastern (Orthodox) and Western (Roman Catholic) branches. The tension between these camps had been building for some time. It was exacerbated by poor communication between leaders from the East who spoke Greek and those from the West who spoke Latin. But the immediate issue that caused these tensions to flare was a seemingly obscure argument about the Holy Spirit known as the filioque controversy.

Filioque is a Latin word meaning “and the Son.” The Nicene Creed, which was written in 325 and expanded in 381, declared:

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, and who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified…

Two centuries later, the Latin-speaking churches of western Europe began to recite:

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son…

Eastern leaders objected to this addition, calling it a heresy. (Interestingly, the Roman Catholic Church later agreed that the implications of this small addition would be heretical in the Greek language version of the Creed, but insists that it is acceptable in the Latin version. But I digress.) The East also objected to the process by which filioque was inserted, saying that the Western bishops broke communion with the East by acting unilaterally. In 1054, leaders from Rome and Constantinople excommunicated each other. The dispute erupted into grotesque violence in 1182 when Latin residents of Constantinople were ethnically cleansed. The Roman church returned the favor in 1204 by sacking Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade.

Some of you are probably thinking, “That is incredibly stupid. Why would Christians kill each other over a single word about the Holy Spirit?” Of course, there were many social and political factors that contributed to these terrible events. But there were also sincere believers who were defendjng what they considered to be essential truths of the Christian faith. In hindsight, it does seem ridiculous and horrible. But before jumping to conclusions, isn’t it worth asking why an issue that seems so trivial to us would be so important to them? Is it possible for us to reject their violence but still learn something from them about the seriousness of how we understand and think about God?

Now let’s jump ahead to the present time. What has been the single most important development in Christianity over the last century? Many would say that it is the Pentecostal/charismatic movement. For the most part, Pentecostals and non-Pentecostals are not killing each other. We generally respect and recognize one another as brothers and sisters in Christ. But the differences in how we talk about and practice our faith are quite profound. Charismatic Christians give prominence to supernatural signs and displays, prophetic utterings, miraculous healings, and spiritual warfare (fighting demons) that to skeptical outsiders seem off-balance and out of control. And non-charismatics may be seen by their charismatic counterparts as dull, repressed, spiritually asleep, or even hostile and disobedient to the Holy Spirit.

My purpose in bringing up these two developments in the history of the Church – the Great Schism and the growth of Pentecostalism – is not to take sides in these disputes. I mention them only to provide evidence that what we think about the Holy Spirit actually matters.

In the next two articles in this series, I will get very practical and give examples of how our understanding of the Holy Spirit impacts our spiritual lives.

Since my college days, I have belonged to a non-denominational church that emphasizes textual Bible study, prayer and evangelism. Over the years, we have constantly spoken of God and Jesus, and in passing we have often mentioned the Holy Spirit. We formally uphold the doctrine of the Trinity. But in-depth discussion of the Holy Spirit has been rare.

As far as I can tell, my experience is common among evangelical Christians, especially those of the non-Pentecostal variety. The implicit message seems to be: If you believe that Christ died for your sins, that is enough to make you a real Christian. But is it enough?

Discerning who is a real Christian is not something that I will attempt. That task is best left up to God.

However, I am now convinced that “Christ died for our sins” is an incomplete presentation of the gospel. It is a necessary part of the message for sure. It is a genuine, true message through which God has worked to bring many to faith in Christ. But it falls far short of the message proclaimed by the apostles and recorded in the New Testament. And I do not think it is not an adequate long-term basis for a healthy, growing Christian faith.

The gospel message is rooted in historical events that unfolded over a sequence of five days: Christmas, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, the day of Ascension, and Pentecost. Each of those days was anticipated in the Old Testament. Each of those days is necessary to understand what God has done through Jesus Christ.

Christmas Day (or, more accurately, the moment that Jesus Christ was conceived) was the day when the Word became flesh. The mystery of the Incanation, the declaration that the second person of the Trinity became a human being, is the startling news flash that opens the New Testament.

The next startling headline came on Good Friday, when this God-man died on the cross for our sins. The death of Jesus Christ is another great mystery. The cross is, quite correctly, the kernel of most modern evangelical presentations of the gospel.

But Good Friday would be meaningless without Easter Sunday. It is not nearly enough to say that Christ died for our sins. A Christian must also believe that Christ was raised from the dead. If he was not raised from the dead, our faith is futile, and we are still in our sins (1Co 15:17).

And is not enough to believe that Christ was raised from the dead. The message that energized the early Church, which spread like wildfire and transformed the lives of those who accepted it, was encapsulated in three words: Jesus is Lord. That was the punchline of the apostles’ first evangelistic message (Acts 2:36). The Lordship of Christ was sealed on Ascension Thursday, when the risen Jesus ascended to heaven and was seated at the right hand of the Father (Ac 2:34-35; Ps 110:1).

And that message that Jesus is Lord would have fallen on deaf ears had it not been for the new work of the Holy Spirit that began on Pentecost. The gift of the Holy Spirit was repeatedly promised by Jesus (Jn 7:37-39, 14:16). It is the Holy Spirit who brings our dead souls to life, who enables us to believe in Christ and be regenerated (born again) into God’s family (Jn 3:5). It is the presence of the Holy Spirit, the resurrected Jesus living within his disciples, that makes the Church the Body of Christ in the world today. If we are real Christians, then we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit; if the Holy Spirit is not in us, then we do not belong to Christ (Ro 8:9-11).

We urge people, “Accept Jesus as your personal Savior.” But one cannot accept Jesus as Savior without also accepting the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not an accessory to the gospel. He is a lead actor in the gospel and an essential part of who Jesus is.

The two major titles that we apply to Jesus, Christ (Greek) and Messiah (Hebrew), are equivalent; both mean “the Anointed One.” That word, anointed, refers to a ceremonial application of oil. It was the divinely commanded act by which the nation of Israel ordained her High Priest (Lev 8:12) and designated her King (1Sa 16:13). The anointing oil is an Old Testament image or picture of the Holy Spirit, whom God the Father poured out on Jesus to designate him as our High Priest and King.

The Jesus depicted in the four gospels is a human being — a truly ordinary person — who was anointed and filled with the Holy Spirit at every stage of his life and ministry. He was conceived in the womb of his mother, the virgin Mary, by the power of the Holy Spirit (Lk 1:35). When he was baptized in the Jordan River, the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove, and that is how John the Baptist recognized him as the Messiah (Lk 3:21; Jn 1:33). When Jesus preached his first sermon in the synagogue at Nazareth, he quoted from the prophet Isaiah: “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor” (Lk 4:18-19). When Jesus taught, he did so by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (Mt 12:18). When he healed the sick and cast our demons, he did so by the power of the Holy Spirit (Mt 12:28).

The unbreakable connection between Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit is found in the earliest presentations of the gospel. When the Apostle Peter preached his first gospel message to the Gentiles, he said, “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit” (Ac 13:16). When Peter preached his first message to the Jews, he said that the risen Jesus ascended into heaven, received from the Father the gift of the Holy Spirit, and poured out this gift on his disciples on the day of Pentecost (Ac 2:33).

Does any of this really matter? Is knowing about, believing in and understanding the Holy Spirit relevant to our practical lives and to our experience of God today? Or is all of this stuff just abstract theologizing that should be left to those pointy-headed scholars in their seminaries, which, as we all know, are little better than cemeteries?

Sorry, that’s a badly worn-out joke. If you understand where I am going, you will realize that I do not think that seminaries are cemeteries. On the contrary, I am becoming convinced that our theology of the Holy Spirit is critically important to our faith and practice. If it were not, then why did Peter take time to present it to non-believers and seekers in his evangelistic messages?

Surely the Holy Spirit is present among many people who do not know or understand him. But that is not a good reason to delight in ignorance. Many have believed in Jesus and experienced the authentic work of the Holy Spirit with little or no theological understanding. But without clear understanding, Christians tend to misinterpret what is happening to them. If we fail to compare our experiences to Scripture, we tend to draw incorrect conclusions and make inaccurate generalizations about the Holy Spirit which, over time, keep us from maturing and lead to unhealthy beliefs and practices. Sooner or later, the chickens of Spirit-ignorance will come home to roost.

That’s my opinion. But what do you think? Was the Holy Spirit an indispensible part of the gospel that you accepted and believed? Have you been experiencing the work of the Holy Spirit in your personal life and in your church? If so, how? If not, why? On a scale of 1=total ignorance to 5=deep understanding, how well do you think you know the Holy Spirit, and is your present knowledge going to be enough to sustain your spiritual health and growth in the years ahead?

But what about other theories of the atonement? Aren’t they more plausible and less offensive to the dignity of man? Here we review two other theories of the atonement to see if they are better suited to explain what happened on the cross. These two other theories are called the Ransom Theory and the Christus Victor Theory.

Tradition

The first alternative theory of the atonement is called the “Ransom Theory”. This is “the view, developed by (the theologian) Origen, that Christ’s death was a ransom paid to Satan since he held mankind in bondage.”^[12] In other words, God sent Jesus Christ as a ransom to pay to Satan in order that Satan would release human beings from his grasp. The blood of the Lamb of God therefore was the “currency” that was paid out to the devil for us.

At first glance, this might seem somewhat plausible. Jesus did say in Mark 10:45, “For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” And in the last days the heavenly host is even going to sing about how Jesus ransomed people, “And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation…” (Rev. 5:9). However, there are a few problems with Origen’s view.

R. C. Sproul explains why this theory in its original phrasing is not widely held today, “If the ransom is paid to Satan, Satan laughs all the way to the bank…But when the Bible speaks of ransom, the ransom is paid not to a criminal but to the One who is owed the price for redemption-the One who is the offended party…it is God the Father. Jesus as the Servant, offers Himself in payment to the Father for us.[13] If we view the Ransom Theory in this light it makes much more sense. While it does not displace the Penal Substitution theory, it may supplement it and even add to its validity because if God is the one who is still the offended party and God is the one to whom the ransom is paid, then Christ as our penal substitute, and Christ as our ransom are two sides to the same gem.

The second theory is called the “Christus Victor” theory of the atonement. This view was made popular in the 20^th century by Gustav Aulen.[14] It states that one of the main reasons Jesus went to the cross is to obtain victory over sin and Satan. There is also scriptural support for this view. In Genesis 3:15, God promises to send the seed of the woman to crush the head of the serpent. And many times, the gospels and new testament letters state that Jesus has victory over the devil as well (See John 16:11; Matthew 4:1-11, 12:29; 1Corinthians 15:54-57).

This theory of the atonement has many merits, and one can see how it is legitimately held, however it does not negate the fact that penal substitution is still a main component of what occurred at Calvary. Even though there are many who would currently like to see the Christus Victor theory displace penal substation, the Bible, tradition and reason do not give grounds for it. In fact, there are many great Christians throughout history that have proudly held the doctrine of Penal Substitution as a precious truth, even though there are people today who would make the claim that this doctrine is a recent development. From as far back as Justin Martyr (c. 100-165), the authors of the book “Pierced For Our Transgressions” cite a plethora of famous Godly theologians who believed in penal substitution. People like Athanasius, John Chrysostom, Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, John Bunyan, George Whitefield, Charles Spurgeon, Martyn Lloyd-Jones and many others.[15] So it is not for lack of scripture or lack of history that some deny this crucial doctrine, instead it could stem from the scandalous nature of the cross itself. In the next section we shall see the reason behind the necessity of penal substitution.

Reason

In discovering why penal substitution is needed in the first place, we must delve deeply into both the character of sinful man and the character of the Holy God. Part of the reason why penal substitution is rejected by some people is the offense that it necessarily brings to the pride of man. In other words, penal substitution says that man’s sin is so bad that Jesus Christ had to leave the courts of heaven and come down to earth to bear the punishment that everyone of us deserves from the Holy God. This doctrine crushes the pride of the man who wants to think that he has some meritorious goodness within himself, that his sins are not so bad, and that God is not Holy. Only penal substitution displays how heinous sin really is and also how holy and gracious God really is!

There is therefore a close relationship between the concept of propitiation and penal substitution. Leon Morris says, “The wrath of God is real and…we must reckon with that wrath. Unpalatable though it may be, our sins, my sins, are the object of that wrath. If we are taking our Bible seriously we must realize that every sin is displeasing to God and that unless something is done about the evil we have committed we face ultimately nothing less than the divine anger.”[16]

In this light, we see that Jesus is our substitute who takes the righteous wrath of God on our behalf as our propitiation. This is what God has done about the evil we have committed! Wiersbe continues this thought, “In His holiness, (God) must judge sinners; but in His love, He desires to forgive them. God cannot ignore sin or compromise with it, for that would be contrary to His own nature and Law. How did God solve the problem? The Judge took the place of the criminals and met the just demands of His own holy Law!”^[17] Reasonably, the question begs to be asked, “why does God consider sin to be so bad that He would need to send his Son to die on a cross as a penal substitute?

Jonathan Edwards illustrates four propositions about why sin is so sinful: First, that every sin or crime deserves a punishment in proportion to the heinousness of the sin/crime. Second, A sin/crime is more or less heinous according as we are under greater or less obligation to the contrary. Third, Sin against God, being a violation against infinite obligation, is infinitely heinous. Fourth, Persons who sin against God are infinitely guilty and worthy of infinite punishment.[18]

Perhaps this could be stated in a simpler way with an analogy. A man is sitting around a table with some of his personal acquaintances and one of them says something that offends him, so the man hauls off and slaps his acquaintance. It might be that nothing would happen, the acquaintance simply shrugs it off. The man is so angry when he leaves that he speeds in his car on the way home and when the police pull him over he slaps one of them, now he will definitely go to jail. While he is in jail he keeps thinking about his court date when the judge will see his point and let him go, but when that day comes, the judge sentences him to another year. The man is even more angry than before, so he walks up to the judge and slaps him. The next time he is sentenced, it is for 10 years instead of 1. Finally, after stewing in jail for 10 years, the man thinks that it is the president’s fault that jail sentences are so harsh so he finds the president at a rally and slaps him! If the Secret Service does not kill the man, he will probably spend the better part of his life in prison. The penalty is incrementally greater, and the sin worse for the same act because as Edwards says, “sins committed against anyone must be proportionately heinous to the dignity of the being offended.” God is infinitely worthy of our love, worship, devotion, honor and obedience, and the natural man does the opposite of these things. It is no wonder that he stands infinitely guilty and thus deserves the infinite punishment which is eternal hell. It is here that the doctrine of Penal Substitution becomes all the more glorious in our sight! Jesus took the infinite punishment for our sins that we deserve, and in return, he imputed his righteousness to us!

Christian Experience and Application

Penal substitution has had a great impact in the history of the church. What other doctrine more forcefully proclaims the Love of God for sinners than that He sent his Son Jesus to take the penalty for our sins as our substitute? The evangelical gospel preacher must have this doctrine in his heart and on his tongue every time he preaches the gospel. As Martyn Lloyd-Jones says, “Is there anything greater than this, that God should take your sins and mine and put them on this own Son and punish his own Son, not sparing him anything, causing him to suffer all that, that you and I might be forgiven? Can you tell me any greater exhibition of the love of God than that?”[19] Oh how wonderful is the Love of God! The doctrine of penal substitution should lead all Christians to say with Horatio Spafford, “My sin, oh, the bliss of this glorious thought! My sin, not in part but the whole, Is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more, Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!”[20]

[12]Enns, Paul. The Moody Handbook of Theology. Revised ed. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2008. 626.

[13] Sproul, R. C.. Saved from What? . Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008. 66-67.

[14] Hebert, Gustaf; A.G., and trans. Aulen. Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement. New York: Macmillan, 1972.

[15] Jeffery, Steve, Michael Ovey, and Andrew Sach. Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution. Leicester, England: Crossway Books, 2007.

[16] Morris, Leon. The Atonement: Its Meaning and Significance. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1984. 176.

[17]Wiersbe, Warren W. Be Comforted. Wheaton, Ill. : Victor Books, 1996, c1992 (An Old Testament Study), S. Is 53:10

[18] Jonathan Edwards, “The Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners,” in Sermons of Jonathan Edwards, 2nd ed. (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2005)

[19] Lloyd-Jones, Martyn. Great Doctrines of the Bible: God the Father, God the Son; God the Holy Spirit; The Church and the Last Things. Leicester, England: Crossway Books, 2003. 335.

[20] Spafford, Horatio. It Is Well With My Soul. Celebration Hymnal. orchestration ed. Nashville, TN: Word Entertainment Music, 1997.

In contemporary culture, there are so many opposing responses to this question that it is hard for many to get to the heart of the answer. For some, the death of Jesus was a tragedy that should have been avoided. For others, it was the most loving act of self sacrifice in history, and an example that we should follow. There are those who believe that the death of Jesus was a necessary ransom to pay to the devil in order to free mankind from his grasp. Still others believe that, “Calvary may be an episode in God’s government of the world…as the argument goes, God, being holy, deemed it necessary to show to the world His hatred of sin, and so His wrath fell on Christ.”^[2] And yet, there is also a current “reclaiming” by many in the Christian faith of the most wonderful doctrine of the cross, called Penal Substitution.

The great reformer Martin Luther described Penal Substitution like this, “Christ took all our sins upon him and for them died upon the cross. Therefore, it was right for him to be ‘numbered with the transgressors’…Christ bears all the sins of all people in his body. It was not that he himself committed these sins, but he received the sins that we had committed; they were laid on his own body, that he might make satisfaction for them with his own blood.”[3] This is the glorious doctrine of Penal Substitution. As another hymn writer named Isaac Watts once wrote: “Was it for crimes that I have done he groaned up on the tree? Amazing pity, grace unknown and love beyond degree!”[4]

The doctrine of Penal Substitution is at the heart of the Cross itself. Of course, penal substitution is not the only way to look at the death of Christ; in fact the Bible employs many different pictures of what occurred at Calvary. However, the overall picture would not be complete without it. In order to perceive how necessary this doctrine is, one must understand its relevance in scripture, tradition, reason, the Christian experience, and how it is personally applicable to all followers of Christ.

Scripture

There are many biblical passages from both the Old and New Testaments which proclaim the doctrine of Penal Substitution very clearly, even though this doctrine has many detractors. In his book, “Proclaiming the Scandal of the Cross” Mark Baker writes, “In the end, a penal satisfaction presentation of the atonement can too easily lead to a situation in which we might conclude that Jesus came to save us from God.”[5] This same book also features an author who is on record as saying that the concept of penal substitution is nothing less than Divine child abuse! This is certainly a straw-man argument against the theory of penal substitutionary atonement for reasons we shall henceforth see.

As early as Exodus chapter 12, we see penal substitution imagery displayed in the Passover, where a lamb was to be slain and its blood smeared on the door posts of the Israelites for their deliverance. About this event, Mark Dever writes, “God does not say that the Israelites were exempt from judgment just because they were Israelites… If they would be saved, it would not be because God’s justice had no claim against them; it would be because when God saw the blood on the doorframes, the blood of the sacrificial substitute, he would in grace pass over that house as he judged”[6] (emphasis mine). It is an interesting correlation that when John the Baptist first saw Jesus in John 1:29 he proclaimed, “Look! The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world!” This is a clear reference to the substitutionary work of Christ which came to fulfillment on the cross when he “…was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people.”[7]

Indeed, throughout the whole Old Testament we see type after type, and shadow after shadow and even prophesy after prophesy about the substitutionary nature of the Messiah of Israel. In Leviticus 16 the “Day of Atonement”, or Yom Kippur is described. This was the day when the sins of Israel were atoned for and in order for that to happen, there had to be a blood sacrifice. Verses 11, 15-16, and 21-22 give the basic summary of what occurred:

“Aaron shall bring the bull for his own sin offering to make atonement for himself and his household…He shall then slaughter the goat for the sin offering for the people and take its blood behind the curtain and do with it as he did with the bulls blood: He shall sprinkle it on the atonement cover and in front of it. In this way he will make atonement for the Most Holy Place because of the uncleanness and rebellion of the Israelites, whatever their sins have been…He is to lay both hands on the head of the live goat and confess over it all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites…and put them on the goat’s head…the goat will carry on itself all their sins to a solitary place; and the man shall release it in the desert.”

Here is basic penal substitution illustrated. The bulls and goats had not intrinsic guilt of their own but they were appointed to carry the guilt of the sins of the nation on themselves. In particular, verse 22 explicitly says that the “scape goat” is the one who carries the sins on its own head. In our vernacular the term “scape goat” is usually used to describe a person who is blamed for something that someone else did. In Leviticus 16 the scape goat is “blamed” for the sins of the people and he is released into the wilderness to die as the penalty for those sins vicariously. In the same way Jesus Christ is like our scape-goat, he is legally blamed for our sins, and in return we are pardoned! The Tyndale Bible Dictionary says, “Israel understood that to bear sin meant enduring the consequences, or penalty, for sin (cf. Nm 14:33). The same penal substitution is evident in the working principle of the Messiah’s atoning sacrifice. He is the victim’s substitute to whom is transferred the suffering due the sinner. The penalty having been thus borne vicariously, the suppliant is fully pardoned.”^[8]

In Leviticus 17, God is busy giving his Law to Moses, when a most important statement is made about how He is to be reconciled to man in verse 11, “…the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the alter; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.” That word “atonement” is similar to the word “reconciliation.” In fact, the word “atonement” can be divided by its syllables to understand its meaning, “at-one-ment.” In other words, when atonement is made, reconciliation is made. The two become one again. “Objectively and once for all, Christ achieved reconciliation for us through penal substitution. On the cross he took our place, carried our identity as it were, bore the curse due to us.”[9] As Galatians 3:13 explicitly says, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.” The curse of the Law was laid on Christ who Paul says, became a “curse for us.” The apple of God’s eye became a rotten apple so to speak, so that other rotten apples could be made whole again.

Perhaps the most graphic and prominent portrayal of this concept of Penal Substitution is in Isaiah 53:5-6, “But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all” (emphasis mine). These verses could not be more evident about the fact that the Messiah’s role would be one of bearing the punishment that others deserve!

The Apostle Peter would later write about Jesus Christ that, “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.” And also…”For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit…”[10] These verses emphasize “the substitutionary nature of Christ’s death. He “sufferedonce for all concerning sins, the just for the unjust.” Again the note of innocent suffering is sounded: He was righteous and thus suffered not for any misdeeds of His own but as a substitute for those who were unrighteous, who justly deserved punishment for sin.”^[11]

[1] Bliss, Philip. Hallelujah! What a Savior. Celebration Hymnal. orchestration ed. Nashville, TN: Word Entertainment Music, 1997.

[2]Evans, William ; Coder, S. Maxwell: The Great Doctrines of the Bible. Enl. ed. Chicago : Moody Press, 1998, c1974, S. 73

[3] Luther, Martin. Galatians (Crossway Classic Commentaries) (Crossway Classic Commentaries). 1st British ed ed. Leicester, England: Crossway Books, 1998.151.

[4] Watts, Isaac. At The Cross. Celebration Hymnal. orchestration ed. Nashville, TN: Word Entertainment Music, 1997.

[5] Baker, Mark. Proclaiming the Scandal of the Cross: Contemporary Images of the Atonement. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2006. 22.

[6] Dever, Mark. It Is Well: Expositions on Substitutionary Atonement. Leicester, England: Crossway Books, 2010. 19-20.

[7] Hebrews 9:28

[8]Elwell, Walter A. Tyndale Bible Dictionary (Tyndale Reference Library). Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, 2008. 888.

[9] Packer, J. I.. Concise Theology (sc). Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, 2001.

[10] 1Peter 2:24, 3:18

[11]Zuck, Roy B. A Biblical Theology of the New Testament. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1994. 443.

Dear Reader: The following is a fictional conversation written to initiate discussion on an important topic concerning different traditions of the Christian faith. This article is not meant to be a divisive but to spark informative, honest and respectful discussion. One author happens to be Protestant and the other Roman Catholic. We are good friends (so far), go to the same church (somehow), and do not intend to ignite another “holy war” (yet). Instead, we thought this would be an entertaining and humorous way to discuss serious issues of doctrine.

***

John Paul and Luther Van Calvin, two 16th century commoners, mysteriously find themselves on the campus of the University of Chicago during the University’s club fair orientation. They are unsure of what age of history they are in but through a series of discussions with the locals (and each other), they may soon find out.

Luther Van Calvin: (yawns) Now indeed by the mysterious sovereignty of God I find myself awake in such a peculiar location! (glancing around at the U of C campus) Is this the long awaited Paradise? Pardon me, sir, I see you find yourself in a similar predicament. My name is Luther Van Calvin. Tell me, why are there so many young people roaming about, bustling here and there in such chaotic disarray?

John Paul: I am not sure where we are. Perhaps a type of learning institution. You and I seem to be the few God-fearing people in this place. My name is John Paul. I wonder what all these booths are for? It seems that they are having some kind of club information day. “The Marijuana for Michigan” club? Hmm…Some of these clubs seem questionable. I wonder if the Magisterium has approved of them. Wait a minute, I see your carrying around your Gutenberg Bible. Does that mean you are a Reformer?

LVC: ….Indeed, I do carry with me the Word of God, and I give thanks to the Lord that because of you I am not without a fellow Christ-loving companion…(scanning the booths)…And yet I fear…this place…truly must not be Paradise for His chosen elect. I sense traces of the Fall still lingering in this place…

University of Chicago Student #1: Who are you guys? And interesting outfits you guys got on. Are you hipsters? So, hey, would you sign my petition to save the environment?

LVC: From what does the environment need saving?

University of Chicago Student #2: Are you kidding me? Are you like still in the Dark Ages, man? You know, there was that recent gulf of Mexico oil spill, global warming, off-shore drilling… We are totally destroying this earth for future generations!

LVC: Humans do seem to be treating creation as badly as you say. However, it would seem that humans are the ones who first need to be saved, no?

UofCStudent #1: What? Saved? You mean, like saved from our “sins” or “hell” or something? Oh man, here we go with those Christian fundamentalists again… You know what, forget it. I’ll go talk to that guy over there (walking away and addressing another student).

JP: Interesting… So these young people do not believe in eternal damnation, nor do they fear God’s final judgment. Hopefully they haven’t strayed too far from Christ. Surely there’s a chance for them enter heaven and receive purification through the fires of Purgatory.

LVC: Purgatory? Brother, I do not doubt your sincerity of heart, but here you are badly mistaken on that point. For the Holy Scriptures speak nothing of the sort.

JP: Really? But Revelation teaches that nothing unclean will enter heaven (21:27), and Hebrews tells us that without holiness we cannot see God (Heb 12:14). Alas, I must not be as holy as the Reformers, for even though I have loved Christ since I was a child, I still commit venial sins. Purgatory is meant to cleanse me of this remaining dirt by the fire of God’s love. What a blessing! Praise God!

LVC: Indeed, the Scriptures to which you refer indicate the necessity of being cleansed of our sins to come into God’s holy presence. But it only indicates the necessity of being cleansed and not the necessity of a special place which you call Purgatory. Indeed, if anything, it is a special Person, not a special place that does this purifying work. And the Scriptures clearly say that it is the blood of Christ that cleanses us from our sin (1 John 5:7-10; Heb 10:19), not the fires of Purgatory. Shouldn’t we be worried that the idea of Purgatory will detract from Christ’s work on the cross for our sins? Brother, I fear you are adding to scripture which the book of Revelation firmly condemns.

JP: I would never do such a thing! Nor would I take away from scripture (winking at Luther Van Calvin). The emphasis in Purgatory is also a Person and not a place. The tradition of the Church has always conceptualized Purgatory as a process in which we encounter the consuming fire of our God (Hebrews 12:29). Both Saint Peter and Saint Paul spoke of such a process where we would be purified by fire (Peter 1:6-7; 1 Cor 3:15). Can the wonderful light of God detract from God? Purgatory is just a process by which you are clothed with the fire of God in preparation for the wedding feast. What guest would enter his gracious master’s home without proper attire (Matt 22:11-14)?

LVC: Indeed, but this proper attire is already given to us when we clothe ourselves with Christ (Rom 13:14). I wonder, my dear friend, whether you are confusing Purgatory with the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. All the Scriptures from which you quote about the consuming, purifying fire of God refers to the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. Remember it was the Spirit-like tongues of fire that descended on the believers on Pentecost (Acts 2:1-13), and John the Baptist refers to the work of the Spirit as fire (Lk 3:15-18). Although I agree with you that this fiery, consuming, purifying work of the Spirit is a process, I do not think Scripture gives us evidence to think of Purgatory as a place of any kind.

JP: But brother, the passages are specifically referring to an afterlife. Have you ever considered Matthew 12:32 where Jesus says that a word against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven in this age or in the next age to come? What age could that be if there is no forgiveness in heaven?

LVC: The Age to Come is not referring to Purgatory, brother, but more likely the period of end times when Christ returns. For when Christ returns, 1 John 3:2-3 says that when he appears we shall be like Him, for we shall see him as He is. The Apostle John does not say that when he returns, we first go to Purgatory for purification and then we shall be like our Lord Jesus; it simply says that we will be like Christ — which the Apostle Paul says will happen in a flash, in a twinkle of an eye (1 Cor 15:52). Unless you think that during that brief moment of a twinkle of an eye, we undertake a momentary trip to Purgatory.

JP: You know your Bible well. But keep in mind that the Greek, ” in the next” (en to mellonti) generally refers to the afterlife (see, for example, Mark 10.30; Luke 18.30). But I suppose it could mean the Second Coming. What about when Jesus asked us to come to terms with our opponents or we would be handed over to the judge and thrown into prison where we would not get out until we have paid every last penny (Matthew 5:26;18:34; Luke12:58-59)? Or the story about the unmerciful servant who was sent to a prison and not released until he payed back what he owed (Matt 13:32-34)? What else could this prison be? Surely there is no escape from hell, and obviously we wouldn’t want to escape from heaven, as there are no debts to be paid in heaven. So, logically, purgatory must surely exist.

LVC: Remember, brother, that Jesus is speaking in parables to communicate a spiritual truth and does not necessarily describe something literal with every detail in the parable. The point of the parables you quote is the truth of God’s judgment for those who don’t repent. It doesn’t necessarily mean that there is a literal prison that collects every last penny. Jesus simply communicates that sin requires punishment. And you are correct in the sense that our sin does need to be paid. But, fortunately, our Lord Jesus paid our sin-debt in full when he said on the cross, “It is finished.” No need to pay any more pennies there. Brother, it is finished! (John 19:30).

JP: Yes, not all parables are meant to be taken literally. But if Purgatory wasn’t meant to be taken literally, then why did Jesus use the same image in so many descriptions of the afterlife? Why would he bother differentiating between the two types of afterlife (neither of which refer to hell) in multiple passages? For example, the story of the master who beats the slaves but allows them to live. Or when St. Peter talked about Christ preaching to the spirits in prison? (1 Pe 3:18; 4:6) Peter uses the word prison, the exact same word Jesus used.

LVC: Hmm…I confess the 1 Peter passage is a difficult one to interpret (1 Pe 3:18), and at first glance it does appear to provide support for your position. But I believe this prison of the spirits refers to Hades. This reminds me that when we recite the Apostle’s Creed, we affirm that Jesus descended into Hades. I am not exactly sure what Hades is, but this could be the Paradise of the dead where the Old Testament saints were located before the coming of Christ. They were all awaiting the Messiah’s promised coming until Christ, after his crucifixion, descended to them in Hades and bore witness to them the Gospel.

JP: So you do grant that there might be a place that is not heaven, nor hell, but some intermediary place which I call Purgatory but which you call Hades?

LVC: Yes, tentatively, but I would not martyr myself over this belief. And you too have to grant, however, that nowhere in this passage does St. Peter talk about this prison as being a place where people are trying to pay off their sins, or “pay every last penny.” It may be a prison in the sense that the spirits of Old Testament saints were held there before Christ, but such a prison of Hades must no longer be necessary in the era of Christ. For now that Christ finished the work of salvation, we can say like Apostle Paul that when we die, we are “absent from the body” but will be “present with the Lord”! (2 Cor 5:8)

JP: Brother, I have to honestly say that you are completely misinterpreting Scripture. I should say a rosary for you.

LVC: Indeed, the basis of both our positions all rest on a particular interpretation of Scripture. We seem to be at an impasse. You defend your position with Scripture; I defend mine with Scripture. We each accuse the other of misinterpreting Scripture. Who then gets the final word? Who is the final arbiter?

JP: That is why we need a Magisterium, don’t you think?

LVC: Good question, brother. Let’s discuss that next time. For now, Let us simply open up it up for discussion at UBFriends. Does Purgatory exist?