More On the Impossibility of Calvinistic Christian Psychotherapy, Richard Beck

Shel: yep.

More On the Impossibility of Calvinistic Christian Psychotherapy

http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/

Posted on 4.08.2013

 

I wrote a post last week about the theological impossibility of Calvinistic Christian psychotherapy. The basic idea was that Christian psychotherapy assumes that psychological well-being is intimately associated with, if not synonymous with, spiritual well-being, being reconciled and in intimate communion with God. More, given that Christian psychotherapy is, well,psychotherapy there is the assumption that the human agent–the client–has a capacity to make choices, decisions and changes that can move him or her toward that state of spiritual well-being, a reconciled relationship with God.

And yet, Calvinistic anthropology denies this agentic capacity, this ability through your choices and changes to move toward God and a state of grace. And in denying that capacity it seems that a Calvinistic Christian psychotherapy is rendered logically impossible. A person cannot do anything to move, in a decisive way, into a state of grace. And without attaining that state of grace full psychological well-being cannot be achieved. The therapist and client must wait upon the saving action of God. The therapist can pray for the client, but she can’t do therapy. At least not therapy that might produce rich and robust psychological outcomes.

Arminian anthropology, by contrast, grants a human capacity to make choices, decisions and changes that can decisively move a person toward union with God. This capacity is granted by the Arminian conviction that humans have free will and are expected to exercise that will in moving toward God. Because of this anthropology Arminian Christian psychotherapy is logically coherent. In an Arminian Christian psychotherapy the human efforts of both client and therapist are believed to be efficacious in moving the client toward God–toward spiritual well-being–which in turn profoundly affects and supports psychological well-being. This is not to deny the activity of the Holy Spirit in the therapeutic process. It is simply the recognition that beyond prayer therapy works as therapy, as human agentic activity that can move a person into a state of spiritual well-being. Basically, the relationship between seeking spiritual well-being and human effort in psychotherapy makes sense given how Arminians view human agency.

To make the logical issues here more clear, we can imagine three premises:

 The Therapeutic Premise:
Therapy involves human agents making choices and changes that lead to greater well-being.

The Well-Being Premise:
Psychological well-being is dependent upon being in a state of grace, a reconciled relationship with God.

The Anthropological Premise:

  1. Calvinistic Version: Human agency lacks the capacity to move a person into a state of grace, into a reconciled relationship with God.
  2. Arminian Version: Human agency is capable of moving a person into a state of grace, into a reconciled relationship with God.

If I was a better logician I probably could re-word these premises to tighten up the logical associations between them. Still, I think the basic idea is made clear. If you accept the the Therapeutic Premise, the Well-Being Premise, and the Calvinistic Version of the Anthropological Premise you have, what seems to my eye, a logical impossibility:

 Therapy involves making choices and changes to move toward greater well-being. Well-being is dependent upon being in a reconciled relationship with God. However, humans lack the capacity to make choices or changes to bring about being in a reconciled relationship with God. Therefore, the logical outcome: Therapy cannot improve well-being.

If, however, you are working with the Arminian Version of the Anthropological Premise you have something that is logically consistent and coherent:

 Therapy involves making choices and changes to move toward greater well-being. Well-being is dependent upon being in a reconciled relationship with God. Humans have the capacity to make choices or changes to bring about being in a reconciled relationship with God. Therefore, the logical outcome: Therapy can improve well-being.

Which brings us back to my conclusion from last week.

A Calvinistic Christian psychotherapy is an impossibility.

What Would Jesus Make of “Passion” (Conferences)? Guest Blog by Austin Fischer

A repost from Roger’s Blog January 9, 2013: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2013/01/what-would-jesus-make-of-passion-conferences-guest-blog-by-austin-fischer

What Would Jesus Make of Passion? by Austin Fischer (Teaching Pastor, The Vista Community Church, Belton/Temple, Texas)

 Hooray Excellence!

 At the moment I’m writing this, there are 60,000 college students gathered inside the Georgia Dome in Atlanta. They are singing worship songs, listening to sermons, and gathering what will no doubt be a massive offering that will go towards combating human trafficking. It’s pretty unbelievable stuff, but the Passion conferences specialize in the unbelievable.

Cutting edge media, excellent musicians, famous speakers. If we’re going to be candid, it’s refreshing to see something “Christian” also be something of such exceptional quality. You could invite an agnostic friend to it and not blush at the prospects of asking him to pay a couple hundred bucks to attend something that feels like a home-school prom. I like excellence, you like excellence, we all like excellence, and I think Jesus does too. Hooray excellence!

That said, as I was reading the tweets of a number of my students who are at Passion, a question kept bouncing around inside my head. Maybe I was asking it of God or maybe God was asking it of me—I often can’t tell the difference. But either way, the question was, “What would Jesus make of Passion?”

Now I know, I know. The question is both loaded and brutally anachronistic, but it just kept asking itself to me. Spoiler alert: I have no idea what Jesus would make of Passion. But here’s some stuff I threw up against the wall. Maybe some of it sticks.

Thought #1…Temple = Georgia Dome

I remember the first time I went to a Passion conference. I was a senior in high school and together with my youth pastor and a few friends, we made the trek to Sherman, Texas. And from the beginning, the trip had a certain vibe to it, a vibe I’ve since learned is the anticipation of pilgrimage.

Religious pilgrimages—as far as I can tell—stretch back to the beginning of human history. There’s something primeval and elemental about the act of going on a journey to a place where we believe we will encounter something transcendent. In the Hebrew Bible, we see God commanding the Jews to make yearly pilgrimages to “appear before the Lord God” (Exodus 34:18-23). Once the Temple was built, these pilgrimages would culminate there, the place where heaven and earth came together. Indeed for a Jew, the Temple was the holiest place in the whole universe. They traveled there because God was uniquely there.

And by way of crude parallelism, it would appear that what the Temple was for an ancient Jew, the Georgia Dome is now for many young-adult, American evangelicals. They take a yearly pilgrimage to the Dome because they feel it is a place where God is uniquely present.

“Cleansing” the Temple?

So what do we make of this? The first thing that came to my mind was Matthew 21 and Jesus’ “cleansing” of the Temple. I put cleansing in quotations because contra popular belief, NT scholars point out that Jesus is not cleansing the Temple so much as he is shutting it down. Flipping over the tables of the money-changers and seats of the dove-sellers (21:12)—these are not acts of purification but condemnation. The exchanging of pagan coins for Jewish coins and the selling of animals for sacrifice were both essential for Temple worship. The Temple didn’t need rehabilitation. It needed to die.

But not because God hates buildings; rather, the Temple needed to die because Jesus was replacing it. Jesus was a one-man, walking Temple; the place where heaven and earth came together and God was uniquely present to his people. As N.T. Wright says, “What the gospels offer us is a God who is in the midst [of us] in and as Jesus the Messiah…Jesus himself is the new Temple at the heart of the new creation…And so this Temple, like the wilderness tabernacle, is a temple on the move, as Jesus’ people go out, in the energy of the Spirit, to be the dwelling of God…”[1]

Now from one angle it’s tempting to connect these dots. Jesus shut down the Temple because he was replacing it. The Georgia Dome has become a new Temple. Jesus would walk into the Georgia Dome and flip over the merch tables and slam Chris Tomlin’s guitar, Garth Brooks style. And while that sort of simplistic reasoning certainly won’t do, I do think it raises some interesting questions regarding the pilgrimage/Temple mentality that so clearly permeates the Passion ethos. So here go a few thoughts…

(c)hurch

Jesus didn’t shut down the Temple because it was evil. He shut it down because it was obsolete and no longer needed. God was doing a new thing, was making himself present to his world and his people in a new way, and the Temple didn’t have a place in this new creation. God was now present to his people through the Spirit and was present to the whole world through his Spirit-filled community = the church. And I put church in lower case on purpose. Local churches made up of normal people doing normal things…this is the God-appointed medium of God’s presence and grace to the world. Not a Temple. Not a yearly pilgrimage. And dare I say, not a trip to the Georgia Dome.

To be sure, many Passion attendees love their local church and their pilgrimage to the Dome is a noble period of spiritual refreshment. But I don’t mind going out on a limb and suggesting that for a great many attendees—perhaps the majority—Passion is the most spiritual moment of the year. It is the standard by which all other spiritual moments will be judged. They’ll have to wait a year to feel this close to God again because it’ll be a year before they’re back here, singing the resounding chorus to an awesome song, having just listened to a sermon from their favorite celebrity pastor, all while their eyes are dazzled by the glitz and glamour of it all. It will be a chore to wade through the ordinariness of actual church life for another year.

As I once told a college student, if Passion is the most spiritual moment of your year, a.) I feel bad for you…b.) you’re not going to be able to love and serve your actual church.

And that’s because your actual church actually has to be the church. It has to deal with crying babies, botched song transitions, average sermons by not-famous people, and a budget for the year that is half that for 4 days of Passion. It’ll never measure up and so you’ll probably bail and look for a church that will feed your Passion addiction (if only Passion could be a church…or wait…it is ;) or you’ll stay and complain and never put down any real roots.

I inhabit and am thus aware of a rather small sliver of reality that I know as my life, and speaking from here, this is not hypothetical. I work with college students, I watch it happen, and I deal with the aforementioned phenomena. For the longest time, I didn’t quite know what to call it and I still don’t. But I know it involves a skewed understanding of the spiritual life in which a streamlined, hyper-spiritualized gathering has replaced the gritty reality of incarnation, of learning to be a human, among other humans, through whom God is reconciling the world to himself. It invigorates the spiritual life to be sure, but it does so by immersing them in something that just doesn’t seem to bear much resemblance to the real world.

And so as ironic as it may sound, maybe what Passion is doing is not progressive or ground-breaking so much as it is, well, antiquated. That’s hyperbolic to be sure but maybe, just maybe, Passion needs to make sure it doesn’t build something that Jesus already tore down. And I really hope it doesn’t build it on top of the church.

Thought #2…Going Vegan in a Steakhouse

Maybe you don’t buy the “Passion or church” thought above. Maybe you think you can have your cake and eat it too. I’m not so convinced most people can, but moving on, thought #2 is something I hope we can all agree on, even though it is uncomfortable.

So I’m told that at the beginning of this year’s Passion conference, Louie Giglio got up, surveyed the energy and buzz of 60,000 students packed into the Dome and said, “Is this not incredible?” He went on to talk about how Passion has become a global movement, impacting millions of lives and followed that up by telling the story of a student who had been addicted to drugs, but as a result of last year’s conference is a year clean. Louie then said, “The testimony of these days in the Dome will be, ‘I know that He is the Lord,’ and ‘I know He can do immeasurably more because He did it in my life,’ and ‘I don’t need an event, I don’t need a Dome, I need Jesus’.”

“I don’t need an event. I don’t need a Dome. I need Jesus.” Amen! See, Louie and company know it’s about Jesus and not an event. But let’s allow ourselves to sit with the irony for a moment. Louie stands before a crowd of 60,000 people, in the Georgia Dome, talking about how this is a global movement, telling a story about how this event helped a guy be sober for a year…and he says, “I don’t need an event, I don’t need a Dome…” But Louie, you’re in the Dome, at an event, hyping the event. We hear you saying something about not needing a Dome, but it’s hard for us to take you seriously when your face is being projected on that 5-story tall LED screen suspended in the middle of the Dome.

Perhaps it’s something like taking a group of people to the best steakhouse in town, providing them with a buffet of the finest cuts available, all the while telling them that eating meat is wrong and we should all go vegan. You can talk to people about the virtues of going vegan all day long, but as long as you’re feeding them steak, I doubt they’re really listening to you. And perhaps even more importantly, I question whether you really want them to listen to you.

Means = Message

There is a more technical way to say all of this: your means is your message. When delivering a message, our words are not the only things that communicate. Everything communicates, and in particular, the “way you do things” communicates, perhaps the loudest. I’ll borrow an example from an excellent book.

Kent Carlson and Mike Lueken were the pastors at one of those suburban, fast-growing, soon to be mega-churches. Fearing they were bordering on becoming a “seeker-sensitive” church, they started really emphasizing discipleship from the pulpit. But they noticed it wasn’t changing the culture of their church. It was still trending towards consumerism and impotent discipleship. What was the problem? In their own words, “We couldn’t merely change the words we used to communicate the gospel because there were too many other messages ingrained in the Oak Hills culture that would contradict our words.”[2]

In other words, you want to make sure you’re creating disciples and not voyeuristic consumers? Then you’re going to need more than words spoken in a context that contradicts everything you’re saying. It’s naïve to think we can hook people with a massive, consumer experience, and then not expect them to act like consumers. As Carlson and Lueken say, “Our attractional methods are not neutral. We are training people as we attract them.”[3]

Some Conclusions

So what would Jesus make of Passion? I don’t know. I think he’d enjoy hearing 60,000 people singing to him. I think he’d love a massive offering taken up to combat human trafficking. I think he’d rejoice in the refreshment and repentance taking place. And as mentioned earlier, I think he’d enjoy the excellence of it all. These are—in and of themselves—indisputably good things. But I’m not sure what he would think about the new Temple we’ve constructed, the celeb-pastor cults, or the Passion fever. But deconstruction is easy, so how about a little reconstruction.

I suggest this: Do some massive downsizing for Passion next year. Minimal media, no celeb-pastors or musicians. Get people who are good, just not famous…they’ll cost less. Maybe just leave the regular lights on. Maybe you could charge $50 instead of $200. By my calculations, that’s somewhere around $10 million dollars you’ll save the attendees. Then, challenge everyone who attends to put that $150 they saved at Passion towards their local church’s budget. Or if they really hate their local church and don’t believe in it enough to give $150, then give it to Compassion, International Justice Mission, etc. And then maybe Louie could stand up in the Dome in front of 60,000 people and say, “I don’t need a dome, I don’t need an event, I just need Jesus”, and we’d actually be able to hear him.

And one more thing. We Christians do have an unfortunate tendency to be cynical towards things that are doing well—especially when it’s not “our” thing. Whatever the psychology behind it, it’s all too easy to be swept away by some latent notion that if it’s Christian and successful/excellent than there must be something wrong with it. The success and excellence of Passion should be something we rejoice in. But success and excellence—from a truly kingdom perspective—are things only achieved through ruthless self-evaluation and continual repentance. Like most things, I don’t think the Passion conferences are all black or all white. Like most of us, they do some good things and bad things. So here’s to exposing the hype and nourishing the good.

 

 


[1] N.T. Wright, How God Became King, 239.

[2] Carlson and Lueken, Renovation of the Church, 57.

[3] Ibid., 67.

Having the Devil of a Time….

Shel – At Mercy Church we just finished a 3-part sermon on Sharing Jesus – Entering the Warzone.  Just came across this article from renowned Biblical scholar Ben Witherington III.

Having the Devil of a Time….

June 4, 2012 By Ben Witherington

It’s an old tension or conundrum, but still one worth pondering. On the one hand, it’s a mistake for the Christian to give Satan too much credit for what is going on. Some Christians find demons under every rock in the NT, and even talk about a demon giving them a cold etc. Of this sort of demonizing of everything that goes wrong in life, the NT shows no hint.

Indeed, it is worth noticing that Paul never even uses the word demon, save once (‘you cannot share in the table of demons and also the table of the Lord’). If Christ is the Lord of your life, Christian do not need to fear being possessed by demons. Pestered perhaps, bother or bewildered from the outside or even persecuted, pressured, and harmed perhaps, but not possessed, not spiritually endangered.

If you read Rev. 2-3 carefully you will notice that the powers of darkness are said to be able to harm believers physically, but not spiritually. They are protected spiritually. Greater is he who is within you than the forces that are in this world. Notice in Job 1-2 Satan is able to harm the body, but not the spirit of Job. That’s on the one hand.

On the other hand, we have plenty of evidence that Satan still wreaks havoc in the world. Jesus for instance talks about Satan. In Mark 4.15 it is Satan who comes and takes away the Word from the lives of those who’s hearts are like a well-trod path. In Lk. 22.31 Satan is said to be allowed to sift the disciples but Jesus has prayed for Peter so that his faith does not fail altogether, and when he repents and turns back to Jesus he is supposed to strength his fellow disciples.

In Ephes. 6.10-18 Paul is quite frank that we are in a struggle with the Evil One, who has fiery arrows and we must struggle to stand against the onslaught of the evil one in this evil age. In John 8.44 Satan is seen not merely as a tempter but as a liar and a deceiver, and the father of lies. Acts 26.18 says that pagans are under the power of Satan and need to be rescued, and indeed Lk. 10.18 makes clear that exorcisms were one form that rescue took in Jesus’ ministry. He was able to bind the Strong Man, and set his captives free. But the battle is definitely not over. Revelation records a threefold fall of Satan— from heaven to earth, from earth to the Pit, and from the Pit to the lake of fire. According to that book, Satan is alive and well on planet earth these days, and according to 2 Cor. 11.44 he has many disguises, even appearing as an angel of light. 2 Cor. 12.7 says that even Paul was harmed by a stake in the flesh courtesy of Satan. In 1 Thess. 2.18 Paul freely admits that while he wanted to come visit his converts, Satan prevented him from doing so.

Satan is no de-clawed cat or paper tiger in the NT. Indeed, 1 Peter 5.8 says he is a roving, roaring lion looking for someone to devour. He is regularly credited in the NT with schemes, plans, temptations, and harm. Rev. 2.9-10 even says Satan can throw a believer in jail, even leading to his death, but his soul is protected from harm. 1 John 5.18-19 says the whole world is under Satan’s power and control.

On the other hand, 1 John 2.13-14 says Satan can be overcome by believers, and that he flees when he is resisted if one turns to God. ( James 4.7).

C.S. Lewis once said it is perhaps the greatest trick or smoke screen or deception of Satan to convince people that they are too wise to believe in him. But at the same time, it is a mistake to give him too much credit as well. There is a balance between the extremes reflected in the NT, and this is in part because all of the writers of the NT believe they live in ‘this present evil age’ which, now that the Kingdom is breaking in, is passing away. Satan, after the death and resurrection of Jesus is fighting a rear guard action, for he has already lost the battle of D Day, and V-E Day is coming when Christ returns.

The believer then lives betwixt and between, overcoming evil with good, but not surprised or caught napping when temptation happens, wickedness has it’s day, believers suffer, and all is often not right with the world. The good news is— Christ has overcome the world, through faithful life and death and resurrection, and that is our recipe for overcoming as well.

Bishop John Howe on the work of the Holy Spirit

Tim has a great post, this:

Bishop John Howe on the work of the Holy Spirit

from Stand Firm by Timothy Fountain

The Holy Spirit will come in a new way.  He will come to glorify Jesus.  And when he comes, he will convict (or convince) believers that the world completely misunderstands sin, righteousness and judgement.

Martin Luther said that Jesus went on to give definitions of those three words that are radically different from what the world thinks they mean.

The world thinks of sin (if it believes in it at all) as “breaking the rules,” violating the commandments, doing bad things.  But in Jesus’s death on the cross, all of those sins are forgiven.  The one that remains is the refusal to accept his gift of forgiveness and believe in him.

The world thinks that righteousness is the opposite of sin – keeping the rules and doing good things.  Jesus said that our righteousness – our right standing before God – is not a matter of what we have done at all; it is a matter of what he has done on our behalf!

Jesus completed his work here on earth and went to the Father on our behalf.  Our righteousness is his finished work.

(If trust in his finished work is our righteousness, sin is our refusal to believe and trust in that finished work.)

The world thinks that judgment is what happens to bad people.  Jesus said that judgment happens to the ruler of this world, and it need not fall on anyone else.  That is good news!  The Holy Spirit glorifies Jesus by convincing people that such good news is true.

Commentary on John 16:7-11, from “Anointed by the Spirit.”

Five “Benefits” of Unforgiveness (Then the Better Way)

Five “Benefits” of Unforgiveness by: Paul Tripp (Then the Better Way)

Shel Boese / Shelby Boese – I know of  so-called Christians who really live like spiritual zombies just to hate, live in un-forgiveness and keep getting their identity from judging someone who did not live up to their expectations (of course THEY can’t live up to their expectations – or are blind to their faults – equally sinful.)

——

Why don’t people just forgive? That is a very good question. If forgiveness is easier and more beneficial, why isn’t it more popular? The sad reality is that there is short-term, relationally destructive power in refusing to forgive. Holding onto the other’s wrongs gives us the upper hand in our relationship. We keep a record of wrongs because we are not motivated by what honors God and is best for others but by what is expedient for ourselves.

Five Dark “Benefits” of Unforgiveness

  1. Debt is power. There is power in having something to hold over another’s head. There is power in using a person’s weakness and failure against him or her. In moments when we want our own way, we pull out some wrong against us as our relational trump card.
  2. Debt is identity. Holding onto another’s sin, weakness, and failure makes us feel superior to them. It allows us to believe that we are more righteous and mature than they are. We fall into the pattern of getting our sense of self not by the comfort and call of the gospel but by comparing ourselves to another. This pattern plays into the self-righteousness that is the struggle of every sinner.
  3. Debt is entitlement. Because of all the other person’s wrongs against us, he or she owes us. Carrying these wrongs makes us feel deserving and therefore comfortable with being self-focused and demanding. “After all I have had to endure in relationship with you, don’t I deserve . . . ?”
  4. Debt is weaponry. The sins and failures that another has done against us become like a loaded gun that we carry around. It is very tempting to pull them out and use them when we are angry. When someone has hurt us in some way, it is very tempting to hurt them back by throwing in their face just how evil and immature they are.
  5. Debt puts us in God’s position. It is the one place that we must never be, but it is also a position that all of us have put ourselves in. We are not the judge of others. We are not the one who should dispense consequences for other’s sin. It is not our job to make sure they feel the appropriate amount of guilt for what they have done. But it is very tempting to ascend to God’s throne and to make ourselves judge.

The Ugly Lifestyle of Selfishness

This is nasty stuff. It is a relational lifestyle driven by ugly selfishness. It is motivated by what we want, what we think we need, and by what we feel. It has nothing to do with a desire to please God with the way we live with one another, and it surely has nothing to do with what it means to love others in the midst of their struggle to live God’s way in this broken world.

It’s also scarily blind. We are so focused on the failures of others that we are blind to ourselves. We forget how often we fail, how much sin mars everything we do, and how desperately we need the grace that we are daily given but unwilling to offer to others. This way of living turns the people in our lives into our adversaries and turns the locations where we live into a war zone.

Yet, we have all been seduced by the power of unforgiveness. We have all used the sin of another against him or her. We have all acted as judges. We have all thought we are more righteous than the people around us. We have all used the power of guilt to get what we want when we want it and in so doing have not only done serious damage to the fine china of our relationships, but have demonstrated how much we need forgiveness.

Forgiveness Is a Much Better Way

It seems almost too obvious to say, but forgiveness is a much better way. The grace of our salvation is the ultimate argument for this truth. Forgiveness is the only way to live in an intimate, long-term relationship with another sinner. Forgiveness is the only way to negotiate through the weakness and failure that will daily mark your relationships. It is the only way to deal with hurt and disappointment. Forgiveness is the only way to have hope and confidence restored. It is the only way to protect your love and reinforce the unity that you have built. Forgiveness is the only way not to be kidnapped by the past. It is the only way to give your relationships the blessing of fresh starts and new beginnings.

Grace, forgiving grace, really is a much, much better way. So, isn’t it wonderful to know that you have not only been called to forgive, but you have also been graced with everything you need to answer this call?

 

3-D Icons: A Short Film on Mannequins -James KA Smith

Shel Boese / Shelby Boese – James Smith makes some brilliant points as does Jesse Epstein in the short film about the “perfect women” as a cultural source of worship.  This is definitely idolatry identified in our culture.  Let us avoid the gnostic tendencies of ignoring or indulging the body.  God created it – care for it – steward it – don’t abandon it or worship it for yourself of others.

 

TUESDAY, JUNE 07, 2011 3-D Icons: A Short Film on Mannequins

In Desiring the Kingdom I offer an opening phenomenology of the mall as a temple–a religious, liturgical space whose labyrinthine corridors are lined by tiny chapels devoted to various saints. And those saints, I suggest, are “pictured” not in the flat renditions of stained-glass but in the 3-D icons of mannequins draped in the au courant vision of “the good life.”
Well, in that vein, my former student Bryan Kibbe recently pointed me to an almost incredible short film that documents the work and vision of a mannequin factory. Titled “34 x 25 x 36” (you can guess why), the documentary unveils the unapologetic industry of female “perfection,” eliciting from the owners and designers a shameless articulation of their goals. This is a must-see for those working in gender studies.
But halfway through the film (at about the 3:30 mark), one of the owner/designers begins to rhapsodize about their work as a deliberate extension of religious devotion to the saints–embodying the now secular, materialist ideal for women to emulate, yea, “worship.”

Posted by James K.A. Smith

 

John Stott on the Self-Substitution of God

Stott on The Self-Substitution of God from Desiring God Blog by Michael Johnson

Shel Boese ( Shelby Boese ): Many people get the subsitutionary atonement theory wrong – many fundamentalists miss the right emphasis and focus on wrath – many who regret this view outright (and wrongly so) are rejecting the fundamentalist versions.
Original

We strongly reject, therefore, every explanation of the death of Christ which does not have at its centre the principle of ‘satisfaction through substitution’, indeed divine self-satisfaction through divine self-substitution.

The cross was not:

a commercial bargain with the devil, let alone one which tricked and trapped him;

nor an exact equivalent, a quid pro quo to satisfy a code of honour or technical point of law;

nor a compulsory submission by God to some moral authority above him from which he could not otherwise escape;

nor a punishment of a meek Christ by a harsh and punitive Father;

nor a procurement of salvation by a loving Christ from a mean and reluctant Father;

nor an action of the Father which bypassed Christ as Mediator.

Instead, the righteous, loving Father humbled himself to become in and through his only Son flesh, sin and a curse for us, in order to redeem us without compromising his own character.

The theological words ‘satisfaction’ and ‘substitution’ need to be carefully defined and safeguarded, but they cannot in any circumstance be given up. The biblical gospel of atonement is of God satisfying himself by substituting himself for us.

 

John Stott, The Cross of Christ (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 159-160.

Emphasis and formatting mine.

William Birch – On Heresy – An Overview of Alister McGrath’s Book

HERESY

Posted by WilliamWBirch on March 23, 2011

In his book Heresy: A History of Defending the Truth, Alister McGrath explores the “ongoing fascination with alternative [and competing] Christianities.” From the back of the book we read, “Alister McGrath examines the history of subversive ideas, overturning common misconceptions that heresy is somehow more spiritual or liberating than traditional dogma.” In light of recent theological and worldview controversies in “our neck of the woods,” McGrath’s book is an invigorating (and hopeful) breath of fresh air.

The following edited and brief post is McGrath’s conclusion to the book. We learn why heresies are so appealing, and why some find breaking with any notion of Church tradition historically (complete with a detour into the realm of mysticism, or some imagined return to first or second-century Christianity, which is a farce) is viewed as more “spiritual” than what they view as “cold” or “strict dogma.” What these people fail to grasp is the spiritually-rich depth inherent in Church tradition and liturgy (note especially the last two paragraphs). I believe that young people, especially, will soon exhaust themselves on the shallow and spiritually-bankrupt antics of the post-postmodern orthopraxy of many “cool and hip” churches. I am eager to witness that Day. Enjoy McGrath’s assessment and conclusion on orthodoxy.

__________

“Morality, like art, means drawing a line somewhere” (Oscar Wilde). . . . Some have suggested that heresy is essentially an outmoded idea, with little to no relevance to modern church life. Even a casual reading of recent writings on the early church indicates that there has been a persistent intensifying of skeptical presumptions concerning the contemporary legitimacy and utility of the notion of heresy. It is widely held that it reflects the concerns and agendas of long-bygone eras in the history of the church, and can safely be discarded. However, the analysis offered in this work indicates that this is simply not correct, primarily for two reasons.

First, the pursuit of orthodoxy is essentially the quest for Christian authenticity. The relentless attempt to find the best formulations of Christian truth claims reflects the insight that Christianity is capable of stating and understanding its ideas inadequately and inauthentically. In a fiercely competitive religious and cultural context, Christianity’s future existence and prosperity will depend upon its presenting itself in its most authentic forms. To put it somewhat bluntly and pragmatically, defective and damaging forms of the Christian faith — in other words, heresies — will limit its survival prospects. The quest for orthodoxy is above all a search for authenticity.

Second, heresies, like history, have a habit of repeating themselves. The historian may treat Gnosticism as a complex intellectual and cultural movement of late classical antiquity, raising some interesting questions for academic historians yet perhaps not for anyone else. However, those who are concerned about the relationship of Christianity and modern culture see a somewhat different picture. Gnosticism lives on today, not necessarily knowing its real name or even its history. Yet its spoor is unmistakable. Its echo is heard today in those who interpret Christianity as a religion of self-discovery, not redemption. Religion is the quest for true inner identity, the “real me,” the inner spark of divine life, or the gold in the mud. The challenge faced by the churches is whether they can counter such cultural stereotypes rather than inadvertently reinforcing them.

The new interest in heresy so characteristic of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries goes far beyond the renewal of scholarly interest in a neglected or misunderstood phenomenon of the past. Indeed, some have suggested that modern scholarship in this area is not simply “enamored” of ancient heresies but practices “historical advocacy” at the expense of “even-handed” history. There is no doubt, for example, that many recent scholars have advocated Gnosticism as a congenial alternative to what they regard as the failings and vices of traditional Christianity. . . .

The lure of the religious forbidden can be accounted for, at least to some extent, on social psychological grounds. However, its appeal is not due simply to the psychology of proscribed forms of social cognition; it reflects a disturbing perception within Western culture that Christian orthodoxy is dull and damaging, which encourages the rise of the counterperception that heresy is intellectually exciting and spiritually liberating. This perception can be discerned within the so-called Victorian crisis of faith and remains a potent threat to the popular appeal of orthodoxy to this day. As one English commentator on the “Death of God” debate of the 1960s pointed out: “While most of the philosophy and theology contained in the ‘Death of God’ literature seems to be very second-rate or worse, it is very necessary to reflect on how absolutely deadly must have been the experience which the writers of this literature must have had, both in the worshipping and in the theological lives of their churches.”

 

Was it so surprising that people concluded that God was dead when the supposed communities of his habitation were so dreary and uninteresting?

Yet the real challenge faced by the churches cannot be neutralized by the demonstration that theological orthodoxy is both necessary and appropriate for the well-being of Christian communities. Can orthodoxy once more be sprinkled with stardust? If Christianity is to regain the imaginative ascendancy, it must rediscover what G. K. Chesterton (1874-1936) termed “the romance of orthodoxy.” It is not sufficient to show that orthodoxy represents the most intellectually and spiritually authentic form of the Christian faith or that it has been tried and tested against its intellectual alternatives. The problem lies deeper, at the level of the imagination and feelings. If Christ is indeed the “Lord of the Imagination,” the distinction between orthodoxy and heresy ought to have significant imaginative implications. The real challenge is for the churches to demonstrate that orthodoxy is imaginatively compelling, emotionally engaging, aesthetically enhancing, and personally liberating. We await this development with eager anticipation.

__________

Alister McGrath, Heresy: A History of Defending the Truth (New York: HarperOne, 2009), 231-34. Regarding any charge of “heresy” for either Calvinism or Arminianism, McGrath comments: “The problem here is that ‘heresy’ is ultimately a teaching judged unacceptable by the entire church; the term is not properly applicable to either Calvinism or Arminianism, which represent divisions within one constituency of Protestantism — namely, the Reformed church. . . . We find here a set of competing Protestant orthodoxies, each with its own grounding in the Bible, its own understanding of the internal dynamics of faith, and its own parameters of adjudication as to what is acceptable and what is not. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the term ‘heresy’ is simply not appropriate in this situation. A heresy is a teaching that the whole Christian church, not a party within that church, regards as unacceptable.” (215-16)

 

Internetmonk: The Insight of Nuns

The Insight of Nuns

from internetmonk.com by Chaplain Mike

By Chaplain Mike

Many years ago, I read an article about Bill Leslie, pastor of the inner city Lasalle St. Church in Chicago. This demanding ministry had brought him to a point of exhaustion. On the advice of a friend, he went to a nearby Catholic retreat center that the church had used and spoke to a nun known as a wise spiritual counselor.

Pastor Leslie had hit bottom. When asked for one word that described how he felt, he said, “Raped.” He also described feeling like an overused water pump. Everyone who walked by grabbed the handle and pumped. He was drained and dry.

Using the pump imagery, this kind sister helped him see that his pipe didn’t go deep enough into the reservoirs of God’s fullness. Because his own inner resources were not sufficient, his supply was quickly used up. She made reference to John 7, where Jesus says, “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.’”

Then she winked and said, “I guess what I’m really saying to you, Bill, is that you need a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.”

Wait! Isn’t that what an evangelical pastor is supposed to say to “heretical” Roman Catholics?

 

In Eugene Peterson’s memoir, he tells about a friendship he developed with a Carmelite nun, Sister Genevieve. An acquaintance had introduced them and they became friends. The pastor visited the monastery to learn about contemplative prayer, she visited the Peterson home for meals, and even came on occasion to stay with them in Montana when they were on vacation.

Sister Genevieve was one of many who reminded the pastor that spirituality is earthy. Once, when she suspected he was romanticizing her “holy” life of prayer and community, she responded by asking him if he found it hard to be married. When he admitted it was the hardest thing he had ever done, she replied, “How would you like to be married to thirteen women? Some of these nuns can be real bitches.”

In another conversation, we had been talking about the Lord’s Prayer. I interrupted the flow of conversation by saying, “Do you know the petition that I have the hardest time praying, entering into, knowing what I am praying?”

“Of course—’Deliver us from evil.’”

“How did you know that?”

“Oh, you Protestants. You are so naive about evil. You know everything about sin, but nothing about evil—the prevalence of evil, the persistence of evil especially in holy places, like this monastery—and like your congregation. The mystery of evil. You make cartoon characters out of evil so that you don’t have to deal with it in your own households and workplaces, crouching at the door every time you open it. Or else you deny it and label everything that is wrong with the world as a sin you can name and then take charge of getting rid of.”

• The Pastor: A Memoir, p. 229

Here’s one Protestant saying, “Ouch.” What is it about these nuns?

 

Ted Haggard…

Todd Rhodes has a great post:

The Last Temptation of Ted Haggard

1/28/11 Todd Rhodes

The Last Temptation of Ted Haggard

It’s the most telling and honest article about the Ted Haggard article to date.  Actually, it was like someone spiked Ted’s drink before he granted an interview with GQ.  I think the drink was spiked with 1/2 truth syrum and 1/2 grain alcohol that provided for a very candid anddisturbing article.

The candid and disturbing:

- What really happened in the scandal that took Haggard down (at least the current version).  Warning:  It goes into some very graphic details.

- Haggard’s fall not only included homosexuality, but pornography and the use of crystal meth.

- Haggard says that others involved in this scandal (accusers, participants, and his original overseer team) will all end up publicly repenting, just like he already has.

- He and wife Gayle refer to the church he founded as “the old Soviet Union” and the Gulag.

- Haggard says if he was 21 in this society, he would identify himself as bisexual.

- The only question Haggard wouldn’t answer was “Do you watch porn anymore”.  The response:  ”Now we’re gettinginto what should happen between me, my wife, and my therapist.”

- The picture of Ted kissing his wife in the hot tub, along with his family (and daughter in bikini) was just a little over the top for me.

I know I will get emails for even mentioning this article at MMI.  I get no joy out of typing the above.  Actually, it makes me sad… and angry.

Sad, because… well… this whole situation sucks.  Sin is so ugly.  And secret sin… when it is hidden (as it was in this instance, for years), has so many levels, becomes so mixed up, and so hypocritical.  Rarely, do we see anyone who has lived a secret sin life for this long, be able to fully come clean, repent, and accept the seriousness of their action.  That is the case with Ted.  Here’s a line in the article that I wish I would have written myself:

Ted may be telling the truth, but his peculiar brand of self-victimization and protestation—in which every “I messed up” is followed by a “but… “—makes it hard for people in Colorado Springs to believe that he’s actually sorry for what he did. One former New Life member expressed what seems to be the general sentiment surrounding his resurgence: “I think Ted genuinely loves God, and I think he has a sincere interest in helping people, but I don’t believe a word that comes out of his mouth.”

Wow… that sums it up for me.  The repentance seems to take a back seat for me whenever the self-victimization and the ‘but…’s come in.

This also makes me angry because I know that this story is in GQ, and it will only reinforce stereotypes of Christians. Having more details behind what went down with Ted’s fall only show how serious a hypocrite and sinner he was.  I don’t see much redeeming quality in that for Ted or the reader.

But there is redeeming quality in it for those of us who work in the church.  We must not allow sin to ravage our lives.  You may not have the popularity and following that Ted Haggard had; but you do have people watching you.  If you work at the church, people expect a higher level of personal integrity and purity from you.  And when you fall, you’ll fall hard… whether you’re in a church of 50 or 10,000.

If you’re reading this as a church leader, and your way in over your head in sin and there’s no way out… you’ve got to find a way.  It will be so much easier if you get help for yourself before someone else finds out and mandates that for you.

So… take Ted’s story as an example of the need of personal integrity.  As a pastor, you’re honesty, integrity, and personal testimony are all you have.  When you lose them, it’s a slippery path to nowhere.  While none of us may fall as fast and hard as Haggard, it’s an important warning to check our motives, to keep our lives pure, and to not make excuses and allow sin to grab a stronghold in our lives.

QUESTION: What could be your downfall?

Take some time today and consider this:  what could be your downfall if you aren’t careful.  Maybe for you it’s not sexual at all… maybe it’s another area:  integrity or honesty.  Maybe it’s financial impropriety.  Maybe it’s drugs or alcohol.  Maybe it’s that you really don’t want to be a pastor but you really don’t know what else to do.  We all have an area that could take us down if we gave in to it.  it’s important that we’re honest with ourselves about what those areas are.  If you need to talk with someone (a friend, your spouse, a counselor) about this one thing… do so today.

Todd