I would like you to consider that making sin the centerpiece of the gospel is not biblical. It is not necessary, it is counterproductive, and it is potentially harmful.
I don’t expect you to take my word for it, but how about Jesus? Here is what he said. Everyone is familiar with John 3:16, “For God so love the world that He gave his only son that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” But what about verses 17 and 18?
“For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
There are two key things I would like to point your attention to in these verses. First, he did not come into the world to condemn that world. (Sometimes I feel like Christians think they have to pick up the slack. God isn’t condemning enough, so we add that part back in.) But here’s the point. Part of this message is not condemnation. Why? Because the world stands condemned already.
How does this translate into reality? There are two kinds of people in the world: those who don’t really need to be convinced that they are less than they should be, and those who you are never going to be convinced. People may not be willing to admit it, but they know that they are moral failures. Why belabor the point? The person you are trying to convince may not admit this to you (especially if you are lecturing him on his sinfulness), but deep down he knows.
It’s not about sin; it’s about unbelief
But read on; verse 18 says what the real condemnation is. Why is man condemned? Because he hasn’t believed. I would even argue that unbelief is the only real “sin” left. Why not work on that rather than trying to convince them of a condition that is beside the point anyway. Afterall, someone who believes can be accepted though he is far from perfect, but someone who does just about everything right, but does not believe, will be rejected. Focus on the real problem: belief.
Still don’t believe me? Perhaps you would hold up the story of the woman at the well as an example of Christ focusing on someone’s sin. Ok, let’s take a look. First, Jesus opens up his conversation with the woman by making his offer. She is there for water, but he offers her a water, that if she drinks, she will never thirst again. Far from just a clever opening line, it get right to heart of her condition. She has a need that only God can fulfill.
Ah, but you say, he very quickly moves to confront her sin, but does he really? First, the conversation appears to go on for a bit, so he isn’t in a hurry to get to the “sin” part. Yet, there it is: he asks her to bring her husband. This is the closest he gets to addressing her sinfulness. He knows that she has had 5 husbands, and is now living with someone. But there is a huge difference between what he talks about, and why he talks about it. He doesn’t bring it up to make her feel bad, or convince her that she is bad and in need of a saviour. She is very aware the she lacks something in her life; she just doesn’t know what it is.
It’s not about sin; it’s about what you lack
So why ask her husband to come join them, especially when he knows she doesn’t have one? The answer is that it directly relates back to the living water metaphor. What is the well that she keeps going back to and then thirsts again? It is relationships. What she is thirsty for is a love that will completely satisfy her. Her problem is that she thinks she is going to find it in a relationship with a man, but we see how that turned out.
She “thirsts” again because the relationships didn’t satisfy her. She marries again because she assumes that she just married the wrong man. She never questions that a man is the answer. So, she tries it again and again, only to “thirst” again.
Why? Because what she is really missing is a love that only God can give. Of course, her marriages fail. She is expecting them to fill a void that they were never meant to fill; they collapse under the weight of her expectations.
She thirsts again, because in her spirit she knows there is a relationship that will fill that void, she just doesn’t know that “Mr. Right” is Jesus.
And that is his point.
He brings her past into the conversation, because it directly relates to her lack and is the best way to show her that her problem is not bad relationships, but trying to solve a spiritual problem socially. Can you see that he has no intention of condemning her? Can you see that he does not want to berate her, or establish that she has “fallen short of the glory of God.”
No, behavior is not the reason for her lack of a relationship with God, her lack of a relationship with God is the reason for her behavior, her “sin,” if you will. The answer is to fulfill that need and the “sin” will take care of itself. The point is that his conversation with her is not about sin as sin, but a deeper understanding of how she got into her present condition and the way out.
Can you speak with that level of discernment? My argument is that you can achieve your goal, as Jesus did, without the yammering on about some vague notion of sin and without trying to convince someone that they are bad.
So, it is unnecessary, because most people on some level know that they have failed. It is unnecessary because they just need to believe, to meet him. He will take care of the rest.
But it is also counterproductive for the people who think they are “good.” They cannot allow themselves to admit they are lacking and they will argue with you tooth and nail to avoid that admission. Why waste time going down that rabbit hole? There are far better ways to approach that person rather than getting bogged down on this one issue. If you could introduce them to the person of Jesus, they will see for themselves how far away from “good” they are.
So, what’s the harm in focusing on sin?
Lastly, but important to me, is the potential harm in such a sin centered gospel. I plan to write about this more, but I see a tendency in Evangelical Christianity to subvert the focus of the gospel into the idea that the ultimate goal is for you to be a good person. When we preach a sin centered gospel, that the problem is sin, it is only a baby step to the assumption that what God really wants is for you to behave better. Behavior is not the goal; it is the evidence. The goal is relationship.
“But,” you say, “Sin separates us from God.” Actually, no it doesn’t. Go back to John 3:17: a lack of belief separates you from God. Sin as a separation, has been removed. That is the actual gospel (1 Peter 2:24 and a million other verses). No one who knows the real gospel should ever even hint that a person should change their behavior as a prerequisite to a relationship with God. Anyone who understands would laugh at the concept: the idea of changing yourself. There is no better example of putting the cart before the horse.
Anyone who suggests otherwise is a danger to all. Nothing does more to separate man from God more than the idea that you must “get right” first. Remember what Isaiah said, “We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment” (64:6). Your own deeds is stink and it’s only his sacrifice that opens the door for you. So, please, do not even hint that someone’s behavior is the key to opening that door.
You don’t change your behavior, he does
Just as with the woman at the well, any change in behavior is a response to the relationship. Drink his water and then you will never thirst again. That’s why Jesus is called “the author and finisher of our faith.” He begins the relationship, and he carries it through to completion (Hebrews 12:2). Any change in your behavior for the better happens through him (Philippians 2:13).
Again, the point is that it is not about behavior. It is about relationship. Why did he sacrifice himself? To make it possible to have a relationship with you, not so that we could all behave better. So, does it matter how you behave? Only in that anyone in a real relationship with him will find themselves behaving better. If that’s not you, don’t try harder. Get more living water.
Fresh thinking well reasoned.
ReplyDeleteI believe we need to consider Christ’s own words that he spoke at the end of Luke. Jesus speaks here post resurrection to his disciples before he ascended to Heaven. Luke 24:46-47 “Thus is it written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations”. What Jesus said in these verses is a straightforward commission to be missional and how we should do it – proclaim who Jesus is, proclaim what he did and then call the nations to repent of their sins. Dealing with sin is a part of the salvation equation, it cannot be avoided or ignored. Much of what you wrote sounds similar to what the Free Grace movement affirms. The ESV study bible editor Wayne Grudem addressed this topic in his new book “Free Grace and 5 ways it diminishes the Gospel”. Free Grace says things like John 3:16 is all you need, and that repenting of one’s sins has nothing to do with Salvation, but the error of this theology is that it takes a few passages out of context but it does not balance itself out with other passages in scripture that bring more clarity about our doctrine of soteriology (salvation). One must look at All that Jesus said on this topic and blend all those passages together to come up with a complete systematic doctrine and theology that is fully in agreement and consistent with all of the texts of scripture not just one select section. Jesus in Luke 13:3 and again two verses later in 13:5 says the exact same thing twice to drive a point home “No, I tell you; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish”. Jesus said two chapters later in Luke 5:32 “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance”. Jesus here in very clear terms states that the reason he came is to call sinners to repent. Repent of what? Sin. Sin is central to the message of the Gospel if for no other reason than because Jesus said this is why he came and what he told us as His disciples to call the nations to repent from. Some now argue that if we use “repentance” that we have a works based Salvation, but I would disagree. In our new discipleship curriculum week #2 explained to us that Salvation can be viewed as a two sided coin. On one side it's a "turn from" and on the other side it is a "turn to". You cannot turn towards something, without turning away from something else, it’s physically impossible. When we come to faith we turn away from our life of Sin and with a changed heart of repentance for the wrong we have done we then turn towards God. The Gift of Salvation is just that – a Gift, not works, but a sinner simply repenting for the wrong things we have done and asking God for forgiveness. Acts 20:21 is a key verse that speaks to where the two sided coin theology comes from and how they work together. It says “testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God AND of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ”. Repenting of ones sin – AND - belief (faith), these both work together. In Acts 2:38 we see Peter obeying Christs final instructions at the end of Luke and preaching “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins”. In the very next chapter we see this similar wording again in 3:19 “Repent therefore and turn again that your sins may be blotted out”. So if Peter’s New Testament church method of evangelism was preaching a gospel of repentance and forgiveness of sin – why then should our message be any different today? Sin is exactly this one thing that separates us from God and why Jesus had to come and die on the cross to deal with this issue that we were all born with. The Prophet Isaiah said in 59:2 “but your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you so that he does not hear”.
ReplyDeleteThere is a lot to say here, but first know that I have no desire to suggest that one could be "saved" and continue to live a life of "sin." But first, we must define terms. So, can I ask you: please define "sin." What is it you actually mean by that term?
DeleteBTW, if anyone sticks with me long enough here, you will find that one of my key beliefs is that we have misdefined many Bible terms, and if we clarify them and put them together, a truer vision of the gospel will emerge.
So, I ask, not just Pete, but anyone, what do you mean when you say the word "sin?"
All right, I'll give you mine: I will suggest three ways of defining/looking at “sin” that I think are more useful. 1. Sin is selfishness, when you are your goal, that’s sin. 2. Sin IS turning away from God; anything you do on your own and not through him is by definition sin. 3. Sin is something good done in the wrong context. Consider that sex in itself is good, but it all depends on when, where, why and with whom.
DeleteI have more, but I guess that will be my next post.