Theological Musings

hose of you who have been reading for any length of time, or who know me personally, know I have a strong attraction to Starbucks. We don’t have a Starbucks anywhere close, but anytime we get “off the mountain”, we try to find one and visit it.

Recently, my good friend Alan Knox wrote a very creative post about Starbucks that I would like to recommend. It’s called “A Cup o’ Joe or a Cup with Joe“. I highly suggest that you all read it. Enjoy the comment thread after it, too.

I don’t want to give too much away, but just know that you should read it, even if you don’t drink coffee (you’ll understand, hopefully). Be forewarned, though: It might be a little convicting.

Until next time,

steve

am pro-life. Big surprise there, right? But there is something that has been bothering me about the whole topic of pro-life as it pertains to politics. And I would like to open up the comment thread here for discussion/input without much of a post here. Since we just had our primary election here in North Carolina yesterday, this is much more front-and-center on my mind.

Perhaps I’ll post more thoughts on the topic in a fuller treatment later on, but for now I’m just curious and need to ask the burning questions. So here goes:

Is there anyone who is willing to say that they are pro-life in every situation, without exception? I have heard many references to the following exceptions to what I would consider to be a truly pro-life position:

• An exception in the discussion about abortion is almost always stated (very matter-of-factly, I might add) for “rape, incest, and the life of the mother”. Are there people who are anti-abortion who do not hold to these exceptions? And my question for those of you who do hold to those exceptions: Why?
• The idea of “pro-life” to me goes beyond the abortion debate, although it is often seemingly limited to that. In light of that, I would say that many people who call themselves “pro-life” are pro-death penalty. So this seems to be another exception. Pro-life except the lives of certain criminals.
• Yet another area that seems to be a large exception is in the area of military action. From a political standpoint, it seems that the ones most opposed to abortion because they are “pro-life” are also “pro-war” in many cases. So an exception seems to be made for killing one’s enemies.

I’m not trying to start a huge debate, but I am very curious. If you hold to any/all of the exceptions I’ve noted, how do you reconcile that with a pro-life position?

Sorry for the heavy topic, but this has been on my mind for several years and I’ve never had the courage to really ask the question of anyone. Now that it’s fresh on my mind again, I thought I’d take the chance here.

Just to let you know, I was brought up believing every one of those exceptions. It’s been a way of life for me for my whole life. But I’m questioning now.

t’s not uncommon for there to be discussions among believers as to what information, what message, what truths are the heart of what we call “the gospel”. Answers will be almost as varied as the number of people asked!

Lately, I’ve been really mulling this question over in my mind. During the course of my 39 years, I have been through several phases of what I believed was central to the gospel message. And I have heard many different explanations of what the gospel message truly is.

Part of this question is made difficult because it appears that different presentations of the gospel in the New Testament took different approaches to the subject matter. There is not one “method” of evangelism displaying predominantly in the New Testament. Nor is there one set “sermon” that was given. There may be something to note in that. But that’s not really the point of this post.

The question of what information is part of the gospel message can lead to some heated debates. Some would propose that it is necessary to present five very specific propositions (I won’t go into specifics, but the acronym might or might not spell the name of a particular type of flower!). Others believe that it is only necessary to present the fact that all have sinned, and that there is a Savior who has paid for that sin. Still others believe that an “orthodox” understanding of the Godhead is necessary to be presented.

Some preach the gospel with an emphasis on the bad news. “Sinner! Sinner! Sinner! Sinner! Oh, and there’s a Savior.” Others skip the bad news and just preach a message that basically says, “You got problems? He’s got solutions.”

In recent years, I have been looking at Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 as the basic gospel message, and the only message necessary to proclaim. I got this from the fact that Paul says he delivered that message to the Corinthians “as of first importance”.

However, lately, I have been rethinking this. Let me explain why. Paul’s list of what he “passed on” doesn’t stop at the end of verse 4. So, if I were to say that Paul’s statement of what was “first importance” reflects the heart of the gospel, I think I would have to do justice to the grammar and sentence structure by including the fact that Jesus actually appeared to certain people and certain groups of people after his resurrection.

Now, these are all very positive things to share with people when proclaiming the gospel, but I’m not sure that they are the very central elements of the gospel. They help explain the gospel, but what is the very heart of it?

In thinking this through, I have begun looking closely at 2 Corinthians 5, specifically 2 Corinthians 5:14-20. Allow me to quote it here for you:

[O]ne died for all, therefore all died; and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf.

Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer. Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

A couple of things stand out to me in this passage:

• The truth about Jesus is all about reconciliation. Reconciliation of the whole world to God.
• That “word of reconciliation” has been committed to us to proclaim to the world, “as though God were making an appeal through us”.

It seems to me that what Paul is saying is that the heart of the gospel message is that God has already reconciled the world to Christ. We have the privilege of proclaiming this great and glorious “good news”!

Furthermore, it would appear that when Paul talks about “recogniz[ing] no one according to the flesh”, it would appear that he is referring to the idea of seeing everyone to whom we proclaim the gospel as reconciled to Christ. I may flesh (no pun intended!) this out in a future post, but wanted to make mention of it here because I think it may be significant.

This emphasis on a ministry of reconciliation seems to parallel very nicely with what Paul proclaimed in Acts 17:22-31 in Athens, Greece. He quoted a poet/philosopher in saying that we (mankind) are all God’s children, and that we “live and move and have our being” through our Father. (That phrase has often been quoted referring to life in Christ, but Paul is not using it in that context.) And while his audience did not know this “unknown god” prior, Paul proclaimed him to them.

So, the heart of the gospel? We are reconciled to God through Christ!

The gospel is not a weapon with which to threaten people. It’s not a guilt trip to make people feel awful about their lives in ignorance of the good news. It’s not a call for behavior modification. It’s not a sales pitch. It’s not a way to build our own human empires. It’s the good news of a loving Father with whom mankind had a relationship that was severed, which relationship has now been restored!

It’s already been done…and that truly is “good news”!

Until next time,

steve

or a while now, I have wanted to blog about a particular topic that I hope will not spark too much in the way of controversy. (How’s that for a lead-in??!) The topic under consideration is that of the Christian’s relationship to sin.

In times past, I have noticed that there are two almost polar opposite views at play in our western version of Christianity. One is the bumper sticker theology that says:

I’m just a sinner saved by grace

or perhaps this one:

Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven.

The opposing viewpoint is one that says that victory over sin in this life is not only possible, but should likely be the outlook of every Christian.

Some of the controversy seems to come from Paul’s statements in Romans 7. In this well-known chapter, Paul describes a struggle between what he wants to do and what he doesn’t want to do. In this chapter, he seems to indicate that the “doesn’t want to do” frequently wins out. Many see this as the believer’s struggle with sin, and then draw the conclusion that Paul was saying that he was not victorious over sin. It would stand to reason, then, that if Paul was incapable of living a life of victory over sin, how could we hope to do any better?

My problems with this are on several levels, however. Perhaps the first and most obvious problem that I have with this passage (obvious to me, at least!) is the context of Romans 7. Without sounding pedantic here, Romans 7 falls between Romans 6 and Romans 8. And both 6 and 8 talk about victory over sin.

For instance, Romans 6:2 says, “How shall we who died to sin still live in it?” And after describing our identification with the death of Christ, Paul says in Romans 6:7, “he who has died is freed from sin.” And again in verse 11, “Consider yourselves to be dead to sin.” Numerous similar phrases appear throughout chapter 6.

Romans 8 is likewise full of positive statements regarding victory over sin. Verse 4 says that we “do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.”

So I have a lot of difficulty understanding how Romans 7 could be Paul’s description of his ongoing experience in his life. I have heard that theory justified (no pun intended!) in many different ways, including the idea of an “already/not yet” concept in Paul’s writing. And while it is true that Paul talks about all creation “groaning” while waiting for the ultimate new creation, he doesn’t speak of human beings in that way. Rather he says, literally, “In Christ = new creation” (2 Corinthians 5:17).

[By way of explanation, there is no verb “is” in 2 Corinthians 5:17. Paul doesn’t say, “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation” or “if anyone is in Christ, he will be a new creation”. Rather, he literally just says, “If anyone is in Christ — new creation. Old things passed away. All things new.” Greek scholars correct me if I’m wrong here, but my understanding of Greek is that two things placed together in this manner without a joining verb are being shown to be equated with each other. So, if we are in Christ, there is no future “new creation” that we need to wait for.]

But an even more interesting passage with this regard is Hebrews 10. I encourage you to read the entire chapter linked there, but I’d like to quote a portion of it here as it relates to the point I’m making:

For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near.

Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins?

But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year.

…[W]e have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins;

but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD,

…For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.

Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus,

…let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

…For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins….

I’ve quoted large chunks of this passage because I want to give a sense of the flow of the passage. Notice the comparison of the sacrifice of Jesus with the sacrifices under the previous Law. In fact, most of the book of Hebrews is built around this type of comparison.

Under the Law, there was a continued “consciousness” of sin. There was a continued relationship to sin. Why? Because the sacrifices under that law were not adequate to completely remove that relationship.

However, under the sacrifice of Jesus, we have been “made perfect”. By way of the contrast being drawn, it could be phrased that we no longer have a “consciousness of sin”.

Now, what does (or should) that mean? I’m open to debate on this issue, but I think that it might be radically different from a lot of what I hear taught.

Should sin be an issue for us? I don’t think so. Should we be continuing in sin if we are in Christ? I don’t think so.

But here’s the important thing to keep in mind: I’m not proposing that this is a “try harder” admonition. In fact, I would run completely in the opposite direction. What I am suggesting is an application by faith of what has already been done for us.

The writer of Hebrews is not suggesting an “already/not yet” tension here. In the same way that Paul says to “consider yourselves dead to sin”, I think we are called and instructed to live a life that focuses on the indwelling Christ who has already washed us clean. That’s why the writer of Hebrews can talk about our ability to approach our Father with confidence, knowing that we are clean.

If we have come to Christ and received the gift of eternal life that he has provided, we no longer have a consciousness of sin (Hebrews 10). We no longer need to let sin have any place in our lives (since we are to consider ourselves dead to it) (Romans 6-8). Having confessed our sins, we are cleansed from all unrighteousness (1 John 1).

I think in some ways, we have replaced the Old Covenant sacrifices, not with the “once-for-all” sacrifice of Jesus, but with our own confessions and prayers. Instead of walking confidently in our position in Christ with no consciousness of sins, we feel that we somehow have to get cleaned up every time we want to approach the Father. But He tells us that we are already clean! By not accepting that, we are yielding to a “consciousness of sin” that should no longer exist.

The last verse I quoted above from Hebrews 10 says it pretty bluntly.  If we go on sinning willfully, there is no sacrifice for sin.  The sacrifice of Jesus has already removed our sin.  And we need not be drawn into a guilty conscience over something that has already been forgiven.  (The Romans 6:1 disclaimer applies here, lest anyone mistake my thoughts for advocating license to sin freely!)

I close with this admonition and reminder from Paul in Colossians 3:

Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth. For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God.

Sin in the life of a believer? Forget about it!

Until next time,

steve

Go read about it here.