Hacksaw Ridge as a Rorshach test

Hacksaw Ridge as a Rorschach Test

Just in case you’re not sure what a Rorschach test is, it’s that inkblot test. You look at the blob and state your first impression of what you think you see there. Psychologists use it as an analytical tool. What you see there tells something about you. You reveal something of yourself.

I’m going to argue that how you react to Hacksaw Ridge (or any movie for that matter) can tell you something about what you believe. So, I’m asking you the question: What did you see in this movie? If you had to state a theme, what would it be?

First, I enjoyed the movie, but I was a little bit confused. I didn’t find the clear message or theme in the movie that I expected. Not that I need a clear “message,” but I’m well-trained at recognizing themes, and pulling together the various elements of the text (the movie) into a consistency that could be expressed in a theme. Perhaps, this time I was lost because I was expecting something different and when I didn’t get it, it confused me. But I don’t think so. The word on my lips as a I walked away was “indeterminate.” I even wonder if Gibson did this intentionally. Is it possible that he refused to underscore a theme to allow us to create our own?

Gestalt theory includes the idea that we naturally take the various elements we see and perceive them as a single whole. That would mean that you will assemble the elements of the story, using your own preconceptions to fill in the gaps and order the evidence provided by the text into a whole that reflects your own beliefs. Perhaps Gibson is simply laying out the story before us and allowing our own natural tendencies to make it into a whole.

So, what was the movie about to YOU?

I see three potential interpretations (although the second two are probably the same thing, ultimately). My purpose here is to interrogate these interpretations to show what they might reveal about the interpreter. What does our understanding of the movie tell us about ourselves?

So, what do you see? Is this a story about a God who found a willing follower whom he could empower to perform a miracle? Is this a story about a great man of faith whom we should all admire? Is this the story of a “saint” (a person who stands apart from all us mere mortals)?

As an act of film analysis, it is my intention to try to stay away from outside evidence; the film is the text, and prior knowledge of the events cannot be assumed. I want to get at what the film itself says. So, here are the facts as I understand them from the movie. Desmond Doss made a commitment to God to never touch a firearm. Doss also felt a duty to serve his country in a time of war. Doss enlisted as a medic; the perfect job for him. He had to endure persecution at the hands of those he was hoping to help, and even had to fight to stay in the military. He risks his life to help wounded soldiers. But on one fateful night, he saved 75 wounded soldiers, singlehandedly lowering them down a cliff with a rope. I would also add that Doss was very humble and wouldn’t acknowledge that he was anything special.

Miracle?

First, do you see this movie glorifying God? At the end of the movie, is there something in your being that recognizes the power of an omnipotent being that used a man to save many? Did you walk out saying, “God is great?” There is plenty of evidence in the movie to lead to that conclusion. There are many unlikely things that lead up to the fateful day. His father shows up to defend him at his trial. His father had not been supportive of his participation in the military, or been a supportive father in any way, but he becomes a key turning point in convincing the military to allow Doss to complete his mission. There is a break in the chain of command that intervenes in his trial to help Doss. These things themselves could easily be seen in as acts of God enabling Doss on his path.

However, the most obvious act of God in the movie is the miraculous night. One must consider the incredulity of rescuing 75 helpless soldiers. Doss, as portrayed in the movie, carries 75 soldiers across a darkened battlefield to a cliff where he lowers them to the bottom. There is at least one close-up that suggests that his hands are getting raw from the rope, and that is fairly early in his night. Consider that sheer physical impossibility of the task. Estimate how many bodies you could carry before you gave out. Even in those stories we all hear about someone lifting a car off of a victim, they didn’t do it 75 times over several hours. Now add in the fact that your own military is bombarding the area without somehow hitting you. Now add in Japanese patrols looking to finish off the dying American soldiers. It is hard to argue that this is not an act of God.

Is this what you saw? Did you walk away praising God? In the postscript interview with the real Doss, he certainly attempts to deflect praise. He does not directly tell the listener to praise God for what happened, but he certainly deflects praise of himself, which leaves only God to credit. Herein lies my question. Why not be more direct? Is Gibson worried about losing audience to an overtly religious movie? Does he not see God as deserving of the ultimate credit and praise for the miracle? Or...does he want to let you decide?

Great Man?

Or did you see the man? Did you walk away from the movie impressed by Doss? Was he a great person who needs to have his story told? Doe he belong in the pantheon of the heroes of American culture? Is it Desmond Doss who should be praised?

Here too, I think you will find plenty of evidence. He is the protagonist. He follows Joseph Campbell’s hero’s journey. Simply by nature of how we watch movies, identifying with the protagonist and participating cathartically in his story, naturally puts him and the center of the meaning-making. Why would we not see the story as about him?

Even Doss’s humility can be read in a way that brings the attention back to him. Our culture rewards those who do not self-aggrandize. In our culture, the fact that he defers credit and does not esteem himself higher than others, only works to make him more praiseworthy. In that, he represents a cultural value.

Within the movie itself, there are few markers to point us beyond Doss. In fact, it was only after the movie that my own thoughts lead me to consider the miraculous nature of his feat. My thoughts during the movie were more apt to be impressed with Doss’s dedication, his selflessness, his conviction. I had to remind myself that there must be a God in this movie, just due to the impossibility of the physical labor of carrying that many men. In fact, the one instance in that sequence that stuck out to me was the moment when his hands were getting raw. I realized that in reality, his hands would be down to bone. His muscles would, at some point, no longer respond to his will. He would want to help, but his body would at some point fail. But again, I don’t see this in the movie; this came from my own thoughts much later.

Even the acknowledgement of his raw hands seems confusing rather than clarifying. The hands hint at the difficulty he faced, but it can be argued that it undercuts the miraculous nature of the moment ; “if it was a miracle of God, why was injured at all?” On the other hand, the fact that his hands weren’t more damaged seems to underplay the incredible difficulty of the task. It seems strange to read it as a miracle that he was only sort of hurt. It would be like saying, “Hey did you hear about the guy who lifted the car off of the accident victim. Yeah, he only pulled a muscle!” Similarly, the aftermath of the event lands him in the hospital, but there is no clear sense of the damage done. It comes off as simply exhaustion. It is indeterminate. Is this a testimony to the man, or to the God behind the man?

Even reactions of the witnesses to Doss’s heroics fail to clearly enunciate the director’s intentions as to how we should interpret the event. They acknowledge it. They are amazed. But they do not interpret. One could easily see a character declaring a miracle, or praising the man. We could even be given a variety of interpretations, including disbelief that might signal us to the need for us to make meaning of it ourselves.

However, what I could read into it was the acceptance of his peers. The film gives us an out, an escape to leave aside the questions of the divine, and see the event in humanistic terms. The despised outsider granted space in the community by proving his value. The surrounding characters are amazed at the feat, without attempting to define it. Those who doubted him acknowledge his value with a nod. Those who despised him are filled with gratitude. The characters are changed by the event, but it appears more to me that it is a lesson learned: “It takes all kinds.”

Is this your inkblot? Did you come away with a sense of the greatness of the man?

Saint?

Or did you find something else? I see a third option that I think is a combination of these two. I can see some reading into this film the idea that there are certain people, empowered by God (or the universe, or whatever) to do special things, but in a way that we can see that they are not us. I can see a view that divides us from these special people, “saints,” and extols their virtues as people we should look up to and admire, but not necessarily aspire to be. In that sense it would ultimately give us an excuse to remain unchanged.

This third view allows a comfortable view of God empowering certain people to certain tasks, so that the rest of us normal people can go on living our lives. We can be thankful, grateful, perhaps even worshipful without getting our hand dirty. If you combine the sense in the first view that this is truly miraculous, you must acknowledge a God. However, if we leave it as a miracle of God, and accept Doss’s claim to ordinariness, then we must conclude that it could just as easily have been one of us. In fact, the only reason that it wasn’t you is that you never considered the possibility that it could have been you.

You see, if your inkblot is the second one, then you’re still at risk of being asked to be a hero. If he can do it, why can’t you? The third way, however, saves you from that challenge. I would call this the “religious view,” because it acknowledges a higher power, but does not challenge you to step outside of your comfort zone.

What did you see?

Repentance - It’s not what you think it is

Repentance - It’s not what you think it is

I say, “Repentance means to change your mind,” and you say, “Yes, about sin. Therefore repentance means to stop sinning.” But I say, “No. Repentance is much more than that, much deeper,” and your eyes glaze over because you have already decided you know what it is.

What you have done is to fit the word “repentance” into your already existing paradigm. It is a transformational concept that you have not allowed to transform you. However you phrase it, you have decided that your main reason for being is to be sinless, or sin less, and that is all repentance will ever mean to you: “Knock it off!”

Your repentance leads to a life of trying. What I’m suggesting is that if you really understood what repentance is, you might have a shot at real freedom from sin.

So, again, I say to you simply, repentance means to change your mind.

Let me restate it: Repentance means to transform your mind: “...but be transformed by the renewal of your mind” (Romans 12:2). This is a broad mandate, but here I want to show you specifically how this relates to human behavior. We still think too much like earthbound humans. We do not see things from a spiritual perspective. We don’t see what is in front of us the same way God does. Some call it a kingdom perspective.

First, it is important to understand that we act out of who we are. Or to put it another way, we act out of what we believe. This is what James is really talking about when he writes, “Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works” (2:18). He means that his faith, his beliefs about the world and the kingdom, lead him to act. You see, if you claim to have a real, actual, relationship with God, you will act in a way that is consistent with that. If you do not act, it proves that you do not have that kind of faith.

The remedy is not to go out and do good deeds. That would be a lie; you’re faking it. The remedy is to find that transformation of your mind that will make you the kind of person who does those deeds. And that is how you overcome sin as well.

If you do things that you know you shouldn’t do, or have been told you shouldn’t do, then somewhere deep down inside, you believe that activity has a value. You are likely trying to try to balance the value of that thing with the value you see in God, and the battle ensues.

Consider that the idea that you can balance these things is false.

If you change your mind about trying to balance, it changes everything. You don’t repent of the sin, per se, you repent of the idea that you can balance that activity with your relationship with God. Once you truly let go of the false idea that you can balance your Self and God, everything changes. You begin to transform your thinking, and then your outcomes follow.

What you have to come to grips with is that no one deliberately does things they think are bad, so whatever you are doing, on some level, you think it is good. You may say gossip is bad, but then why do you talk about people behind their backs? Because it makes you feel superior. So the “good” is the gratification you get from being able to represent yourself as better than the person you are talking about. If you can recognize that you are feeding your ego and that is not “good,” then you transform your idea of gossip from a good thing to a bad thing. You will begin to extinguish the desire to gossip, because you no longer see any value in it.

This is it. Transformation.

This is how you overcome. Any attempt to directly change a behavior, is just symptom relief. Even if you could control the behavior, you haven’t solved the problem in the heart. Let God work on your heart. Then, only allowing God to change your mind will lead to real changes in behavior. I would even argue that if you succeeded in changing the behavior without changing your heart and mind is dangerous, because it leaves you with the disease (sin), without any signs to tell you you have a problem.

You must dig into your heart of hearts to find what the false value is (others have called them idols). What benefit do you think you derive from putting people down, looking at pornography, fighting to get what you want, etc? We can make an endless list of “sins,” but it’s where they come from that matters. What benefit do you think you might derive from that activity? Especially, unconsciously?

Think about the drug addict. He knows the danger, but he does it anyway. Why? One scenario might be to avoid pain. He thinks that facing his demons, perhaps from his past, is scarier than the side effects of the drugs. He gets a high, which he values, but also gets to avoid the pain of confronting his demons. That’s the false belief. The truth is that, while confronting demons is painful, overcoming them leads to peace. If he can transform his thinking to believe that facing his fears is better, then he can proceed. It must begin with a new way of thinking.

I use drugs an example because I think it makes a clear lesson, but this is not about drugs. This is about all of our behaviors that don’t line up. You must find the false belief. You must realize that it is harmful, not valuable. Even if it seems a good things, you must realize that it keeps you from a better thing.

So: You do value something more than or above Him. Figure out what it is. Understand that it is not good, or not as good as the right thing. When the “sinful” thing is not valuable to you, it diminishes. You are allowing Him to transform your mind.

Paul says, “...and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires” (Romans 13:4). What he’s saying is that you must be totally dedicated to Him and His kingdom. You cannot carve out a little space of your own to indulge in from time to time. The only “me” time in the kingdom is that which rejuvenates you to live better for him. Everything must be evaluated by this rule: “Love God with your whole heart, mind, soul, and strength.” If you can’t do it for God, it has to go.

Repent: Let that transform your mind. Peace awaits.

Sin is a condition, not an action

Sin Is a Condition, Not an Action

Previously, I proposed three ways of defining/looking at “sin” that I think are more useful, but I'm going to change the order a little, and hopefully address the second 2.

1. Sin is selfishness, when YOU are your goal, that’s sin.
2. Sin is anything good done in the wrong context, or for the wrong reason. For instance, consider that sex in itself is good, but it all depends on when, where, why and with whom.
3. Sin IS turning away from God; anything you do on your own and not THROUGH him is by definition sin.

I am going to begin with the third principle, that turning away from God IS sin. But this definition is wrapped up in the first one. Sin is selfishness and there are only two ways to be self-centered, or God centered. Therefore, if you are acting selfishly, you ARE turning away from God, and by definition, that is “sin.”

Remember Jesus saying you cannot have two masters (Matthew 6:24); either you are in charge of he is. If anything, in deed or action (yes, even omission) does not begin with him, then it is sin. Again, to reiterate what I think is so important about this is that we must get away from the idea that the sinfulness is located in actions, deeds. It is not. That idea leaves you in charge, making decisions about when you will “serve” your Self and when you will “serve” him.

Are there actions that are necessarily bad? Try to make a list of things people do that are always bad. Can you think of any circumstances in which those actions could be good? I claim that the blame lies, not in the act, but in the origin of the intent.

I’m sure you’ve heard somewhere that the Bible does not say, “Thou shalt not kill” It says, “Thou shalt not murder.” But what is murder, but killing that is wrong? Therefore, it is not a edict against all killing, but only certain kinds of killing. And how do we determine what kinds of killing are wrong? Doesn’t it come down to intent?

You might say that adultery is always wrong, but the same principle applies. The “act” there is sex, and adultery is sex done in a way that is wrong. Sex is not wrong, it depends on how, when, and why you’re doing it. At the heart of adultery is a selfishness that disregards what God wants, and what the adulterer's spouse wants, because what the Self wants is more important.

I could go on, but find me a counterexample. What action is always bad? I encourage you to consider this, if not to disprove me, but because I think there is a value in considering what God really means by the word “sin.”

This I call “Level 2” (because I think we can go even deeper, but more on that later). So, where did I get this idea that the “sin” is in the intent? For this, I turn to Paul, and a passage that often gets us sidetracked. “All things are lawful to me, but all things are not beneficial” (1 Corinthians 6:12 and 10:23). Rather than get caught up in what we can get away with, notice the important principal. Forget about what you can do; what should you do? What will help you toward your goal (the kingdom).

Does this not change the way you look at sin. Put aside your list of rules, your dos and don’ts. Ask yourself what is going to get you to your goals. If your goal is the benefit of “the kingdom,” what “sin” would you commit under this principle? Furthermore, the definition of sin is anything that doesn’t help you to the goal.

1. Is it selfish?
2. Does it benefit Jesus and his plan?

Consider all of the discussions that Paul gives about things like whether or not to eat meat sacrificed to idols. What is his key consideration? Don’t stumble your brother (i.e. 1 Corinthian 8:13). It’s not about what you do, but why. If you could damage another’s relationship with God (the kingdom), but you do it anyway, you’re being selfish.

But let me continue. Level 3:  It’s about the heart.

Jesus. Look at the Matthew 5:21-30. The basic concept is: forget actually killing each other; a scornful heart is murder. Never mind adultery, if you lust, you’ve already crossed the line.

Now let me say that I never want to take away from the real intent of this passage. What Jesus is doing is upping the bar. He is trying to make it clear that the “mark” we are missing is an inner and outer perfection that is unattainable. You see, what the Pharisees had done is dumb down the law to make it tough but manageable. That way, they could claim perfection. (But don’t we all do that?) Jesus was giving a truer definition of the expectations of the law. When one truly understands what is expected, one should instantly realize that they have not only failed, but that it is impossible. Why? So that you will take the remedy: Grace. He doesn’t want you to try harder; he wants you to give up. “Let go. Let God” is not trite; it’s crucial and indispensable.

Now, for our purposes, there is another lesson here: It is about the heart (Level 3). Once you grasp that it begins with why you are doing what you are doing, we can move on. So, first we ask, is it for my benefit or his? Am I seeking first the benefit of “the kingdom,” or my own kingdom? But now Jesus shows us that the actions are characterized by the heart that they come out of. This not different than the previous level, but a deeper understanding.

Think on the text. You know that murder is wrong, but now you can’t even get angry? This is too hard. But look and see: this anger is a condition of the heart. It is a condition, a state of being. It is not an activity that you can just try harder to not do. It is impossible to restrain it. It is the center of who you are. If the heart is bad, you are done. You can’t try harder, do good deeds, or fix it. You can’t do better, because it isn’t something you did. It is so tempting to think about you can restrain your anger, or improve your thought life. But those are counter actions that may have some effect on actions, but that it symptom relief.

You have a condition: a bad heart. The murder, or the scorn, happened because you have a murderous, scornful heart. Even if you can stop thinking angry thoughts, you haven’t solved the problem; the heart is still bad. It is my understanding that an alcoholic who simply stops drinking is what is called a “dry drunk,” and all AA members know that he hasn’t gotten to the root of the problem. He will ultimately fail.

This is where we find ourselves. So what is the answer?

Be transformed (Romans 12:2). But you don’t do that. He does. All of the reasons we have for behaviors that most of us identify as “sinful” stem from that corrupt selfish heart. Until the heart changes, nothing else matters. It is just window dressing, or rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. I also think a “dry sinner” is the worst condition, because it allows you to live a lie that only keeps you from truly changing.

If we preach sin as “bad things that people do,” we keep alive the lie that one can just do better. We interfere with God’s goal of transformation. If you want to preach sin, preach that it is selfishness. Preach that it is anything not done for God, anything done for the wrong reason.

Better yet, preach turning to God, knowing that anyone who turns to God will necessarily turn away from “sin” (Self).

Don’t try to balance your desires (or even “needs”) with the kingdom. Let go of Self and let the healing begin.

If I am missing something, please comment. Even if you agree, I'd love to hear from you. If you have benefitted from this, please share it. And please sign up.

A More Useful Definition of "Sin"

Christians often make me feel like Inigo Montoya. We keep using Bible words in ways that make me want to say, “I do not think it means what you think it means.”

In my mind, this will be the first in a series, but we’ll see. It has been rolling around in my head long enough that I think I need to put it in print. But one step at a time. In a response to a response to my last post, I asked for a definition of “sin.” Since I haven’t gotten it, I figured it is time to get it out there.

I see this as perhaps the biggest problem for believers. How you combat it (or if you even should) depends entirely on what IT is.  I believe a more useful definition of “sin” will revolutionize your world and free you to become what you were intended to be.

I’ll be blunt: Sin IS selfishness.

What I see around me seems to be the least useful definition of sin: “Doing wrong,” “doing bad stuff,” “being naughty.” I would argue that the problem with this definition is that you don’t REALLY know what “bad” is. You think you do, but you are relying on a culturally determined, vaguely defined, normalized sense of right and wrong that is probably a long way away from a truly good.

There is a lot to be said about this, but let me leave it at this: Things are not sinful. Neither is sinfulness is not located in actions. If that’s what you were thinking, that is where your problem begins.

I propose 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 anything good done in the wrong context, or for the wrong reason. For instance, consider that sex in itself is good, but it all depends on when, where, why and with whom.

Ultimately, I’d like to argue that these and any other good definition of sin comes back to the same thing: the Self in control.

First, consider this: Is there any “sin” you can think of that isn’t ultimately putting yourself ahead of God and others?

I think this revelation for me started with considering Jesus’s own words that there was only one commandment: Love God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength (and love your neighbor as yourself - more on that later). Even more important is that Jesus goes on to say, “on these hang all the law and the prophets.” This began a thinking on this topic that changed everything for me. What I realized is that he was saying that rather than try to know all of the “law and the prophets,” he was giving us a simple straight forward approach to the question of behavior.

We tend to see behavior as a list of dos and don’ts, and probably an exhaustive list. I remember fearing that I had missed one, or didn’t know, and God would be mad. It always makes me think of the performer with the spinning plates. How many plates can you keep in the spinning air before it all comes crashing down? If this is your approach, it will come crashing down.

Or maybe for you it is Whack-a-Mole. You stand there with your sin mallet, waiting for temptations to pop up so you can knock them back down.

Can you see that Jesus is giving you a completely different approach? A principle. If you take everything you do, how you spend you time, how you treat others, and ask yourself, “Am I doing this out of love for God? Am I treating the needs of those around me as being at least equal to my own? (Paul actually says to put others ahead of you.) Do I care for them the same as myself?” How can anything sinful come from anything that passes that test?

Anything that doesn’t pass that test is sin.

I feel compelled to point out that any other approach is an attempt to maintain control over your own life. The person who wants a list to follow, the person who wants to try to live up to a standard is really trying to negotiate. You are really saying, “If I do this much, then the rest of my life is my own.” You are trying to avoid truly making him God. You are doing what you must do to get the benefit you want (heaven), and no more. In other words, you are acting in your own self-interest. But no matter how much you do for God, if the goal is your own benefit, you are being selfish, and THAT IS SIN.

Understand, then, that the principle is that everything is done out of a love for God. That is the one rule. To me, “love your neighbor as yourself,” is really just the expression of loving God. If you love him, you will love whom he loves. So if he loves your neighbor, you should too. Also, since God doesn’t need anything from you, how can you return his love? By paying it forward: loving others. So it all comes down to the one rule: love God.

Can you see how simple and elegant this is? What sin can you commit out of a love for God?

But wait, there’s more!

This is why the Bible says: “For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it” Matthew 16:25.

“...but in humility count others more significant than yourselves” Philippians 2:3.

“I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship” (Romans 12:1).

“Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor” 1 Corinthians 10:24.

“For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice” James 3:16.

And the list goes on. A search on Google shows sites like “100 verses about selfishness,” or “41 Bible verse about selfishness,” and more.

What else can one understand from the first one? Death to self. Eternal life is found in losing one’s self. Not only that but a better life now is found in letting go of self.

Rather than trying to deal with your “sins” - those actions that you think are wrong. The better question is to ask what your goal is. Is it selfish? Is it out of love for God? What are your motives?

Think about who really benefits from your actions. A lot of people do a lot of “good” things for selfish reasons. It is ultimately meant to benefit them in some way. That’s the problem with the people who will say, “Lord, Lord,” but to whom Jesus will say, “I never knew you” (Matthew 7:21-23). That’s the problem with the way the Pharisees prayed (Matthew 6:5). It was really about getting acknowledgement, not about God.

I have found this approach to be life changing.

If you can truly grasp that putting God and others first is the life that he wants for you, then you must believe that in the long run that will be a better life. You will be happier. It is what you were meant to be. It is - believe it or not - a lot less work. No more defending yourself, no more fighting for yourself, no more holding on to hurt, no more offense or revenge.

You don’t have to worry about things not going your way, because you have no “way” for them to go. Your way is his way, and things always ultimately go his way.

Why do you do what you do? Who are you doing it for?

“If you were to die today, where would you go?”

For some reason, that question has always bothered me, and I think I have finally figured out why.

The first time I heard that question, I was not a Christian and I thought it was absurd. I think I thought it was a huge assumption that I would “go” anywhere. I was only a teen, but it seemed necessary to first establish the metaphysical assumptions behind the question. Even now, I find the concept that we “go” somewhere to be a bit problematic.

But now I realize that the problem with it is that it lies at the entrance to the self-centered gospel. It’s all about you. It suggests that the goal is to secure your ultimate destination, as though that is why someone might become a Christian. This plants a little evil seed in your head. “Just say this little prayer and God will have to accept you.” The ultimate goal is to get to heaven. Never mind who’s there; it’s better than the other place.

What I’m suggesting is that these things matter. How you preach the gospel creates a context for the life of the new believer.

I’m arguing that this little question carries with it certain assumptions, like a virus that infects your computer without you even noticing. Do you see that if your only goal is to get somewhere, you will only do what is necessary to get there? That, in and of itself, carries another huge assumption: that you must DO something.

You see, It only stands to reason that if some people go to the good place, and some people go to the bad place, there must be a difference. This gospel has already established the difference is that you said a prayer. YOU did something. Therefore, the logic goes, you probably have to do something to maintain it. This leads us to the assumption of many that your behavior matters in your eternal destination. After all, isn’t it about good people and bad people?

The result is a “believer” who adheres to a new law, a list of things that one must do to prove they are actually a believer. The “Law” of the Old Testament may be gone, but we have a new one, which likely includes Church attendance, saying prayers, maybe some Bible reading, and probably something else that the individual believer decided God would probably like.

You see, this new “believer” thinks that it’s not about a relationship, or a new orientation; it’s about avoiding the bad place. But at the end of the day, his duties to God fulfilled, his life is still his own. He isn’t a new creation; he’s just the same person with a golden ticket.

Along the way of course, he will have to ignore those pesky verse like, “Whoever seeks to preserve his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will keep it” (Luke 17:33).  “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” (Matthew 22:37).

Or even more important: “And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (John 17:3)

These verses, especially the last one, create a completely other understanding of Christianity than worrying about what happens at the end of your life. This IS eternal life. It’s a NOW thing. It’s not something you get at the end of your life, then you just get more of it. The new life starts now.

Not to hold myself up as an example, but I can tell you that when I came forward at a Calvary Chapel 150 years ago, the last things on my mind were heaven and hell. In fact, what would happen to me was not even a concern at that moment. What I finally knew at the moment was truth. He is real, and I could know him, and that changed everything.

From that moment on, there has never been a destination that I felt I needed to get to. In what I call the “Eternal Now,” I am here and He is here, and there is no need for anything else.

But the implications of this are staggering. If you actually believe that you are somehow connected to the ultimate power in the Universe, all-knowing, all-present, all-powerful, all-loving, you can never ask, “What must I do to be saved?” There is nothing you can do. But you know that, because you know it has already been done. You don’t ask what is required to stay there, because you know that it is out of your hands, and in much better hands.

You wouldn’t dare insult him by doing the bare minimum: “How many times must a I forgive my brother?” It reminds of the old line from the military, “When I say, ‘Jump,’ you say, ‘How high?’” except, in this case, you don’t even ask, you just jump as high as you can.

If the immediate response to a meeting with God isn’t to give your life to him, something is wrong. I don’t mean to oversimplify; it’s a lifelong process. But you can’t come to him for what you can get out of it. That’s not really coming to him at all. That’s making a deal. There are no deals to be made; there is only unconditional surrender.

Finally, how you say things matter. I suppose there is a temptation to get people in the door anyway you can, but if they enter under false pretences, there are very real dangers of misunderstanding what this is really all about. Let’s not bait and switch. Let the truth stand.

Also, if the original question still seems to make perfect sense to you, is it possible that you are laboring under the same false assumptions?

Does preaching sin really fit in the gospel?

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.