Why we have gotten the meaning of the cross all wrong

For quite some time a few things regarding the Western churches understanding of the cross has being bugging me. Some things just don't seem to add up. So I started looking into aspects of the atonement and soon discovered that what we were all taught in church/seminary was known as “Penal substitution”. Penal substitution theory (PST) refers to John Owens theory that Christ died on the cross as a substitute for God’s wrath to be poured out on sinners. The theory was picked up on by guys like John Calvin and Jonathan Edwards who greatly helped in advancing it. Basically, the theory says that at the cross, God imputed the guilt of our sins onto Christ, and Jesus, in our place, bore the punishment that we deserved. At the same time, Christ’s righteousness was then credited to us. This was a full payment for mankind’s sins in terms of its severity, which satisfied both the wrath and the righteousness of God. for a brief moment, God could not even look upon Christ as he bore our sins. The suffering that Christ endured was so that the Father could forgive us without compromising His own just standards. A sort of balancing of His mercy and justice if you will. This is the most common view of the purpose of the cross within the larger Evangelical circle today. Many are not even aware that alternate views exist. Even John Piper writes in the foreword of the book, Pierced for Our Transgressions, "For if God did not punish his son in my place, I am not saved from my greatest peril, the wrath of God".

This presentation of the cross surely sounds familiar to most people and maybe you are even nodding your head as you read along. Although there is some truth in the above theory, the more I have looked into it, the more I have realized that most of it is seriously in contradiction to a lot of what scripture teaches us about the cross, about the Father and about the Trinity.

 I have divided my thoughts up into three sections below. The first part are the scriptures that came to mind while the second part are the logical problems I could think of. The last part is a re looking into scriptures that are used to support PST. 

PS - Before posting this I quickly re read it and quickly realized that it does not flow very well as I wrote it in a point format. Please forgive my lousy writing skills. If the topic interests you, it is worth overlooking my lack of eloquence ...now, let’s get stuck in!

What’s wrong with Penal substitution?

Scriptural objections

Part of PST says that God cannot look upon sin, supporters of this view will often ignore the infinite scriptures of God dealing with and seeking out fallen humanity and then quote Jesus famous words, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?”. To be honest, I am not really sure why Jesus uttered those words, but what I do know is that he was quoting from Psalm 22 which goes on to say in verse 24

…For He has not despised nor hated the affliction of the afflicted; and He has not hidden His face from him, but when he cried to Him, He heard.

Similarly, we see the Father not playing the role of the bad cop, but as being actively involved at the cross in helping His son.

Isaiah 50:6-9

I gave My back to the strikers, and My cheeks to pluckers; I did not hide My face from shame and spitting.

For the Lord Jehovah will help Me; therefore I have not been ashamed. On account of this I have set My face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be ashamed.

He is near who justifies Me; who will contend with Me? Let us stand together; who is master of My judgment? Let him come near Me.

Behold, the Lord Jehovah will help Me; who is he who shall condemn Me? Lo, they all shall wear out like a garment; the moth shall eat them.

Interestingly, what we have put on God, scripture seems to reverse and lay on man. Isaiah in chapter 53:3-5 goes on to say…
3 He is despised and rejected of men; a Man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as it were a hiding of faces from Him, He being despised, and we esteemed Him not.
4 Surely He has borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; yet WE ESTEEMED Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But He was wounded for our transgressions; He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was on Him; and with His stripes we ourselves are healed.
Further evidence that the Father was helping, rather than punishing His son in 2 Corinthians 5:19.19 whereas God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and putting the word of reconciliation in us.
In harmony with the opening scriptures of Isaiah 53, we see in Luke 22:53 that the violence displayed at the cross was an act darkness, rather than light.

53 When I was with you in the temple daily, you did not stretch out your hand on Me. But this is your hour, and the authority of the darkness.

NB - I believe that the cross was not dealing with the Fathers dilemma of needing to exact some sort of revenge on humanity before being able to forgive us. But rather that He was dealing with the problems of sin, the devil, and ultimately death that had befallen us. As the verse below indicates, the cross did not make the wrath of God of no effect, but rather, the power of death.

10 But it is now having been manifested by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who has made death of no effect, bringing life and immortality to light through the gospel;

A similar statement is made in Rom. 6:9-10 knowing that when Christ was raised from the dead, He dies no more; death no longer has dominion over Him.

10 For in that He died, He died to sin once; but in that He lives, He lives to God. As I already stated, the godhead's victory was not only over death, but over the devil himself. 1 John 3:8 reads-

8 He who practices sin is of the Devil, for the Devil sins from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was revealed, that He might undo the works of the Devil.

Hebrews 2 is an important chapter in atonement theology and worth reading in it's entirety in your own time, for our purposes here though, verse 14  echoes 1 John 3:8 above nicely.

14 ¶ Since then the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise partook of the same; that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death (that is, the Devil),

Logical objections

1 - Does the problem of sin lie with an offended God or with broken man? In Christ’s death and resurrection, who was he “fixing”?

2 - Is it just to punish the innocent? I am astounded at how we can say because God is just he had to punish someone, even the one who knew no sin! Even Pilate did not want to be identified with such an injustice. Any human that would murder the innocent would greatly offend us. Yet we apply the same logic to God and call it "just and holy"?

3 - Can God not forgive freely? This is something God expects of us, it is part of the essence of love which “keeps no record of wrongs”. According to a retributive definition of justice, God indeed cannot freely forgive.

4 – PST claims that in order for God to satisfy his retributive  justice, Jesus had to endure the exact punishment that was due for all of humanity. Think about it, 1 man suffering, albeit terribly for 8 hours, weighed against the whole of humanity suffering in hell forever? That is maybe a 100 Billion people  burning in eternal fire…not to take away from Christ’s suffering. 
But if you had to choose one of the two tortures for yourself, which one would you go for?

5 – It has being stated by many that PST is a form of  “Cosmic child abuse”. A Father who delights in the suffering of His only begotten son at His own hands, this is a terrible way of viewing the cross. It is incredible how many atheists blog about this as one of the main reasons that they left Christianity (apart from the hypocrisy of many church folk).

6 – Most of our atonement thinking is rooted in our concept of justice. Biblical justice is restorative, not retributive. I have blogged previously n this so instead of elaborating as this post is already getting long, please look up the previous article on justice.

7 – PST throws God in with the pagan deities who required a sacrifice (preferably ones own son) in order to be appeased. Sacrifice is often associated with cleansing in scripture, it is not punishment, but rather an alternative to it.

8 – PST separates the trinity, and not just in the sense that the Father could not look on the son, but in that there are needs in the Father that are opposite to the son, one can't look on sin, the other is a called a friend of sinners, one seeks to punish, the other seeks to save.

9 – If the cross was indeed about satisfying the Fathers wrath, then Jesus failed. The bible has sooo much to say about Gods coming wrath, read the minor prophets, read Revelation. If you have E-sword just search “the day of the Lord” and see how many verses pop up. God’s wrath  and who or what it comes against is an interesting but separate topic which hopefully I can address here in future as well.

PST proof texts

Isaiah 53:10 - Yet it pleased the LORD to crush Him; to grieve Him; that He should put forth His soul as a guilt-offering. He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, and the will of the LORD shall prosper in His hand.

This verse is the one people will always bring up, but when pushed on it, no one will admit that they believe the Father took pleasure from the torture or murder of His son. Rather this scripture says to me that the Lord was pleased with the plan or outcome of Christs sacrifice. It is very interesting to note as well how the Septuagint translates this verse, keep in mind that this would be the translation as Jesus and the apostles would have read it.

53:10 - But the LORD  chose to crush him by disease, that, if he made himself an offering for guilt, he might see offspring and have long life; And that through him the LORD’s  purpose might prosper.

Heb 9:23 - And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Most people like to say “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin”. There are 3 things worth pointing out though.

1 - The first part of that sentence always get ignored, note that blood has a cleansing quality. This theme is strongly presented throughout scripture. We have been "cleansed" or "washed" by the blood of Christ. The Father does not have a blood lust...

2 - Although the Greek word "aphesis" can be translated as forgiveness, remission is far more fitting as translated above. What do you think of when someone says that someones cancer is in remission? This goes nicely with the theme of us being healed by his stripes. 

3 - Keeping with the idea of Christs blood bringing us healing as opposed to satisfying the Fathers blood lust. Hebrews 9:23 is made more clear by the preceding statement in verse 14.

"how much more shall the blood of Christ (who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God) cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"

The verse below is another one that gets used sometimes. The same principles of blood mentioned above apply here as well. But something else people don't always know is that justice and righteousness come from the same word in the Greek, "dikaiosune". These words have very different meanings to those who fly the PST flag. Consider replacing the word "justice" or "justification" with "righteousness" or "right standing" and visa versa. They mean the same thing but modern translations like to ascribe the word that best suites their bias. I have inserted justice and righteousness in brackets below after the words as we read them. You can check this using E-sword as well. I hope it gives you a clearer understanding of Gods justice. It is NOT the opposite of His love, but part of it in a restorative sense.

Rom 3:21-26

21 But now a righteousness (the justice) of God has been revealed apart from Law, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets;
22 even the righteousness (justice) of God through the faith of Jesus Christ, toward all and upon all those who believe. For there is no difference,
23 for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God,
24 being justified (made right) freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus;
25 whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness (justice) through the passing by of the sins that had taken place before, in the forbearance of God;
26 for the display of His righteousness (justice) at this time, for Him to be just (righteous) and, forgiving the one being of the faith of Jesus.

I wanted to cover as much as possible here but still, I have only touched on a things without going deep into them. There is plenty of great resources to be found on the topic on the web and I would really recommend Brad Jersak's book" Stricken by God" for those seeking to dig deeper. 

:)

Following God on His terms does not exclude church practices

My apologies that this is so long, but once I started I just kept going and going. It's pretty late and I am pretty tired now so hopefully by the end it all still made sense and came across in the right spirit.

 “Its not the church systems fault entirely! It’s the condition of the peoples hearts! They want to follow and worship a holy and righteous God on their terms and not as stipulated in His Word / His terms!”

This was a response on facebook from a Pastor regarding some statistics on the failings of the institutional church which he had come across. And while I agree with him, that there are indeed several factors that have contributed to the sad state of the institutional church, I still find the quote to be ironic. Because church systems are based almost entirely on the terms and traditions of men standing outside of, and sometimes even contrary to scripture. 

Before I get into it though I would just like to say that the guy who posted that is a wonderful, genuine guy. And the way he is living out his faith is an example to me and a testimony to anyone who knew him BC from what I have heard of his previous life. 

Having said that, clergy can point their fingers elsewhere all they want, but if they want to be taken seriously, they need to lay their own agendas down and follow as well. We love to throw terms like “bible based” around. But when it comes to making personal sacrifices, few advances are ever made. Some will read this, agree with some of the content and then forget about it. Some will dismiss one or two points and then ignore the rest which they did not have answers too. Why, because facing it could cause some tough decisions to be made.

I wish I had more time to deal with the particular topic of the church and perhaps I can another time, but for now, here are a few things off the top of my head where institutional churches have strayed or simply ignored what scripture says on the topic.

Fellowship

It’s funny how Heb 10:25 has been used as a “you must be sitting in a pew on Sunday morning” proof text. The writer (who knew nothing of modern day church practices) was simply urging believers to practice fellowship, something that is hard to do when you are staring at the back of someones head during a sermon which you are not allowed to interrupt. The church of Christ is known for its love for one another (Joh 13:35). Our meetings are designed by activity and chair layout to prohibit this.

No one anothering

The church liturgy completely prohibits the natural flow of one anothering in church meetings as suggested by Paul in Col 3:16 and Eph 5:19. Where singing was once Spirit lead it has been reduced to the in-house bands set list. Teaching is left to one or two professionals. These people are almost definitely well intentioned, but nonetheless an obstacle to letting the body get on with ministering one to another.

Sewing up the veil

Sometimes our theory does not match our actions. While most would proclaim we have direct access to our Father through Jesus. Most Christians have gone the way of the Israelites and appointed a middle man to hear for them. Why stand on your knees in prayer when you can sit in ta pew a pay someone else to do it for you? There is certainly a place for lecture style teaching from those with the gift or a word to share in that way. But it has become the prime focus of church gatherings. 

Priesthood of the clergy?

The clergy /laity split in the institutional church has done more harm than any other error I believe. It puts power in the hands of a few which is the complete opposite of how Jesus explained servant leadership. And it makes the laity lazy. The whole church is supposed to be a holy priesthood (1 Pet 2:5,9). Not just in theory.

Authority

Mathew 20:25 warns that Christs followers are not to exercise authority over one another. Rather, we are to be subject one to another (1 Pet 5:5). Unfortunately, we tend to put those with titles on a pedestal. And when one falls into sin or there is a doctrinal discussion. It’s not necessarily the one who is more mature or right that will prevail because rank will often be pulled to maintain control.

Bow to which King?

It may sound harsh, but an institutional church does not require Christ in order to function, but like a mosque, temple or  other religious institution, it only requires money. And one way to have more money is to register with the government so that they do not need to pay taxes. That does come with a price though, because depending on who your government is, you will no longer be allowed to do or say certain things anymore. In China you cannot read from the book of Revelations or try and convert anyone under 18 years of age, in the West ministers may be forced to marry gay couples against their own convictions. Even if there are no restrictions in your country that bug you, you are still essentially yolked and bound to them rather than God.

The Lords house

Sometimes you could swear that there is a verse somewhere in the bible that says, "What Jesus wants us to do is to go build buildings and give sermons to people there once a week." Now church buildings can be useful for large gatherings, but they do nothing to foster the family relationships within the church. People are inclined to put on a spiritual act and even dress differently at a church buildings than they would at home. The early church met in houses (Acts 12:12, 20,20, Rom 16:3-5, 16:14-15, 1 Cor 16:19, Col 4:15, Phil 1:2) because a) that’s where families gather and b) gatherings were centered around a meal and not a person on a stage. Buildings are also a waste of money. You have to wonder how many Billions have been spent on church buildings. Whatever the figure, you can bet it is more than the combined sums collected to support missionaries, feed the poor and provide or print bibles. When a certain woman asked Jesus about the appropriate place to worship, he replied by saying that the place is not the issue, but rather how they worship (Jo 4:23). Peter said that when the people gather they themselves are a “spiritual house” (1 pet 2:5). 

Wasted funds

I just touched on this regarding church buildings, but money that could be used to store up treasures in heaven  mostly gets used up on salaries, rent, flowers, giant crosses, billboards etc. Once again, this stuff may not be anti biblical, but it costs money to run the machine and we don’t even give it a second thought.

Titles

People love having titles, Pastor Bob, Reverend Joe, Evangelist Harold etc. Jesus however explicitly forbade them (Mat 23:8-10). We are all brothers but we have turned adverbs into nouns and giftings into positions. You can fire a hired Pastor but you cannot stop someone with a shepherds heart from shepherding. 

Size or covering does not protect you from false doctrine

The spiritual covering of a pastor or denomination is something completely absent in scripture. Yet it is supposed to protect us from slipping into error. It does not seem to have stopped the Catholics, Eastern Orthodox or thousands of Protestant denominations from it though and clearly they cannot all be right. While it holds true that "house churches" can also fall into error. Having a flat structure where everyone is subject to one another does protect against error to some degree. It also helps that when error does creep in, it only effects maybe 10-30 people. Whereas if the Catholic church or Calvin got something wrong, millions and millions go along with it.

 Church splits families

Womans meetings, Sunday school, mens breakfast and youth groups can all be useful, but the more meetings we schedule the more we split families up. The early church met as families and placed the responsibility of raising children firmly in the hands of  parents. Its clear from Pauls letters that the children were with their parents when the church met  (Eph 3:1, Col 3:20). Like wise Deuteronomy 6 speaks of how parents need to teach their kids "day and night" Gods ways.

Spirit led?

Are church meetings Spirit led or do they run by program, ie -  Greetings, Fast songs, slow songs and then spontaneous worship and tongues just before the last song, tithe sermon, message sermon, last song, end. This is pretty similar to my no one anothering thought and the same scriptures apply.

Christ at the head

Church members often rave about  Pastor so and so rather than Christ. We need godly teaching and preaching but if the name on our lips afterwards is not "Jesus, then I don't care how good or even how sincere the messenger was, he has failed. How often are we told to visit a church because the band is amazing? Is Christ the center or is there another prominent figure always under the lights?


Divisions

 Somehow we have been led to believe that divisions are actually a good thing. You can now leave a church and just find another one that better suites your ears. Paul strongly rebuked this idea in 1 Corinthians chapter 1 (verse 12 nb). A modern paraphrase would read something like, "I beg that their be no divisions among you, some of you say, I am of Calvin, or I am of Luther, or I am of John Wesley. Is Christ divided?" Much good came out of the reformation, but "sola scripture" was a subtle error and it continues to tear the church apart. "Sola Christus" would have been a much more appropriate slogan and the only foundation the church can truly stand on. Scripture is super important, but without Christ, it often just becomes a weapon to throw at others.

Breaking bread


 What churches call communion and practice with a tot of juice and bread crumb, was in the bible known as a love feast (Jude 12). The church came together for this very purpose, to share a full meal together and remember their Lord. Paul speaks about it in depth when he writes to the Corinthians who were going a bit overboard. People were getting drunk and not waiting or sharing their food with the people who arrived late or were to poor to bring their own food. We don't have that problem anymore because everyone goes home hungry! This is why Paul told them to examine themselves if they are eating in an unworthy manner. The context has nothing to do with remembering something you did wrong at work the day before that you can confess, but has to do with not discerning the Lords body (showing love and consideration for the gathered Church).

 To end I would like to share a short message a friend sent me a couple of weeks back as I find it very appropriate.

Act 7:51  "You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you…

Act 7:57  Then they cried out with a loud voice, stopped their ears, and ran at him with one accord;

Act 7:58b  and they cast him out of the city and stoned him…

Occasionally, the truth can get very annoying.  Yet what a disservice we do to ourselves, when we block our ears to the truth.  Some would say, “Well, how do you know it’s the truth, when it contradicts what we already believe?”  The thing is, Jesus did not call us to stone the messenger in anger, but to expose the lie if it indeed is a lie.  One cannot expose a lie by closing our ears to what a person is saying.  We need to be fair-minded and listen carefully, with discernment and with opened ears search the Scriptures to find out whether these things are the truth or not. 

Act 17:11  These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.

Understanding biblical justice

“Do horses run upon rocks? Does one plow the sea with oxen? But you have turned justice into poison and the fruit of righteousness into wormwood” (Amos 6:12).

 When we think of justice we tend to think of it in a retributive sense, that is, you did this so now BAM! We tend to put this thinking on Gods character as well, separating love and justice in some sort of yin and yang type of understanding (God is this but he is also that). Yet the bible gives us a very different picture of justice, one that shows that justice emanates from Gods love and is meant to be restorative. The two in fact are not in tension but rather in harmony with one another.

Right here I want to add a little side note because as soon as you start talking about Gods love, some people think that you are trying to portray Him as some sort of giant marshmallow who hugs pink bunnies all day long and that you are flying the cheap grace banner by emphasizing His love. I do not believe that the cheap grace message supports a loving god but rather a neglectful one. While I believe God forgives, I also believe that He actively goes beyond that and wants to fix our brokenness. Therefore, I side with the historical view that the cross was about Christ overcoming death, sin and shame on our behalf (empowering the powerless), rather than the |Calvinist/puritan view of it being about God pouring his wrath on Jesus so that he could overcome his anger with you and I (more on penal substitution theory another day). Quite honestly, I am not sure how the innocent getting punished on the wickeds behalf would be considered a just act anyway.

In scripture, it's interesting how justice is often linked with concepts like love, compassion, kindness, peace and salvation. Micah said, “What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God” (6:8).  Hosea spoke similarly: “Return to your God, hold fast to love and justice, and wait continually for your God” (12:6).

I read a fantastic article here http://peacetheology.net/pacifism/biblical-bases-for-restorative-justice/
that defines justice as "how love is expressed in the face of evil". So how has God dealt justly with the world? The gospel reveals that God, in Christ,  has reconciled the world to himself (2 Cor 5:19), it is important to note that in the next verse that Paul urges people to likewise "be reconciled to God". Just because He extends His hand to us doesn't mean that everyone will grab it. The message though reveals that He has sought to redeem us from our brokenness rather than simply act in a vengeful and retributive manner. Of course the bible clearly does speak of events like the coming day of the Lord when heads are indeed going to roll. It's important to understand these things in the context of what justice truly means though. Some will reject God and He will act because some refuse to be redeemed in Christ and the story goes way beyond restoring man anyway and runs into a new heaven (which suffered when Satan lead his rebellion) and a new earth where Christ Himself will reign  and rule . 

A shift in understanding of this one word has really wowed me, I hope that it hasn't stopped there and means something to you all as well.

Thanks for reading.
 

Can God look on sin?

Psalm 90:8  "You have set our iniquities before thee, our secret sins in the light of your countenance."

For most of my life I grew up believing a lot of things simply because they were repeated to me on a weekly basis. Some of those things had no truth in them whatsoever, but other things were a bit more difficult to discern, being dressed up in biblical proof texts. The heading of this Blog entry is one of the latter. It was not until I took a step back and tried to read the bible with no preconceived ideas (which is difficult because we all have them ingrained in us) that certain doctrines started to crumble while others stood firm.

So can God look upon sin or should I say sinners? Did he have to turn his head while Jesus hung on the cross? This is what I was taught based on one tiny sentence Jesus spoke recorded in Matthew 27:46, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?". Yet the bible is filled from cover to cover with stories of God interacting with fallen man. We see God seeking out Adam and Eve in the garden, and once they left the garden, guess who went with them and later on with their children. There is even that strange event in Job chapter 1 of Satan presenting himself before God and the conversation that took place between them.

So what about that verse in Matthew 27 then? The context of that is Jesus quoting Psalm 22 which is one of the Messianic Psalms. Verse 1 opens up with, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?...", and if you keep on reading until verse 24 we get this beautiful verse, "for He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither has He hid His face from him; but when he cried unto Him, He heard". While I do not claim to know what Jesus was thinking when he uttered those words, I am confident that he would have known the whole of that Psalm, including verse 24.

There is another verse in Habakkuk 1:13 which sometimes gets quoted as well, it says "You are of purer eyes than to behold evil, And cannot look on wickedness." but once again the context reveals that there is more to this story. For the very next words in the same verse say "Why do You look on those who deal treacherously..." 

Those 2 scriptures in context are in perfect harmony with the rest of scripture. God can look upon sin and sinners. As already stated, the story within the bible is really one of God interacting with a fallen and sin filled world. The Gospel itself proclaims that God seeks to restore both man and the rest of creation from its brokenness. Culminating in a new heaven, a new earth, and mankind as new creations in Christ.

Romans 5:8  "But God commends his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. "

What fellowship has light with darkness?

It has been a long time since I got to sit down and write something here. So I am thankful for the holiday season that I get to play a little catch up on things like this. 

The title of this post is from that famous little verse in 2 Corinthians 6:14. "...what fellowship has righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion has light with darkness? "

This post actually has little to do with 2 Corinthians 6:14 or with the context that those words were penned. But more to do with the current time of year. We are just days away from Christmas and doubtless we have all been exposed to a nativity scene on TV or in someones garden, a Christmas play or our own personal thoughts of Jesus' birth have been floating around our heads. Every time I hear that verse read or someone quoting it I cannot help but think of it in terms of the gospel. What fellowship has God with fallen man? and what communion has He with sinners?

Love changes things because at a quick glance it seems God has contradicted Pauls words. For God so loved the world He was willing to come and live with us, dine with sinners of all kinds and share life with us. In the garden of Eden he sought out a rebellious Adam and Eve who were hiding in shame. The religious folk accused Jesus of being a friend of sinners. Truth is, he went much further than the pharisees ever could have imagined for his "friends", "But God commends His love toward us, in that, while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8).

He is the good One who tabernacles with the rest. Of course Jesus never partook in the destructive practices of those he hung out with, there was no intent on his behalf to intertwine good and evil, on the contrary, he sought to save us from our own destructive nature by freely giving a new nature to those who would receive it.

That is the good news. No fat man in red, reruns on TV or socks from your grandma on the morning of the 25th. Just the story of the relentless love of a loving Father.

The core of the gospel

Hi all

The last entry I made here lad to some great emails and conversations over the last few days. I was quite encouraged by some of the feedback I had. Although my thoughts may have encouraged some, I realized that where I am scratching the surface some people are already scraping the bone. So thank you!

The one thing that came up the most though was the thoughts on the gospel of the kingdom as opposed to the gospel of the kingdom. The below excerpt is from Mike Erre’s book called “Death by Church” which I recently read and I thought he really put things in a way that I never could. So here it is, read, ponder and take it from there!

The gospel is, at its core, an exchange of sovereignties.

Many stress acceptance of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins, assurance of salvation, and eternal life, and then they leave it at that. But even more fundamental to the gospel is the exchange of sovereignties. Either we live in Satan’s counterfeit kingdom of darkness or we live in the kingdom of God… The sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus have defeated the powers of evil. Conversion to Christ, therefore, is a turning away (repentance) from loyalty and allegiance to what is evil and choosing instead to be loyal to Christ and stand under His reign and rule.

    When we call Jesus Lord, we use the very name given to God in the Greek Old Testament. This declaration is a surrender of our own sovereignty and autonomy and leads to our submission to Him. Paul makes this confession central to kingdom life (as in Romans 10:8-9). When we declare Jesus is Lord, we are renouncing all other claimants for the title. Nothing else-no person, thing, idea, habit, and so on-can have a higher claim on our lives. All idols (including the worship of oneself so prevalent today) must be pulled down, repented of, and crushed at Jesus’ feet. Anything that takes the place of Jesus in our hearts, our devotion, or our passion must go. As Elijah the prophet said to the nation of Israel, “How long will you waiver between two opinions? If the Lord is God, follow Him” (1 Kings 18:21).

     To say that Jesus is Lord is to worship Him and nothing else. Psalm 115:8 and Psalm 135:18 teach that we become like what (or whom) we worship. If we worship sex, we become filled with lust; if we worship money, we become greedy; if we worship people, we then constantly seek their approval. If we worship power, we become controlling and demanding. When we enter into the kingdom of God, we are transferred from death into life, from slavery to freedom, from self-centeredness to God-centeredness. But these are all reflections of one fundamental exchange: we are transferred from the kingdom of death and darkness into the kingdom of God and His Son, Jesus. This is all entailed in declaring that Jesus is King.

   This saves us from the unbiblical idea that intellectual assent to the message of Jesus is considered saving faith. It is far too easy to “pray the prayer” and then go on living by one’s own rules and desires. Under the small gospel, where Jesus deals only with my sin problem, this is common. But the gospel of the kingdom removes such confusion. To step into the kingdom is to submit to Jesus’ authority as king. There is no middle ground.

    This doesn’t have anything to do with being saved by works. We evangelicals are rightly suspicious of anything that smacks of earning our way into God’s favor. But the gospel that pictures my relationship as a spiritual transaction (where I get Jesus’ righteousness credited to me and He has my sin credited to Him) leaves out both discipleship (how do I grow) and mission (what do I do now). The result is the disconnect between belief and behavior.  

10 Things I learnt when I left church.

Nearly 3 years ago I made the decision to leave the institutional church, it was a tough decision for me to make. If I was wrong it would almost certainly have a negative effect not just on me, but on my wife and kid as well. I had not been offended by the church we were attending nor was I backsliding. I simply had it impressed on my spirit that if we stayed we would eventually wither away and die. Around about the same time I started feeling this way I started to meet lots of Christians who were thriving spiritually despite their lack of church attendance. I had some real thought provoking books come across my path as well so soon enough my wife and I made the leap of faith.

It has been the most exciting 3 years of my journey thus far and as a family we have learnt and grown more than we dared imagine. I was reflecting a bit on this recently and so I decided to put pen to paper (or keyboard to Microsoft office word) and write some of the lessons learned that have taken place down over here. These are probably subject to change, hopefully only in deepening of understanding though. Coming from a charismatic and then more of a fundamentalist type of background, I have become a master at learning and unlearning things in the past, something that continues today… These thoughts are brief and therefore run the risk of being misunderstood but I really think that it is going to be quite lengthy already without expounding too much.You can always leave a comment to question something or send an email to moustachepower@gmail.com  if any points are unclear. If  you are reading this it may appear very critical of organised religion, that is not my objective at all. God is undoubtedly meeting people within those walls and programs. The intention here is simply to point to what God is doing outside of the box. 

So anyway, here are 10 things that I have learnt since I left the institutional church.

1 - Your new heart is not desperately wicked and deceitful.

This may seem a little unrelated, but it was an absolutely vital thing to learn to trust my heart again. I’m sure there are exceptions, but whichever churches that I attended when I was growing up, we had Jeremiah 17:9 thrust down our throats, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked, who can know it?”. But Ezekiel 11:19, 18:31 and 36:26 and other similar verses speak about God giving us new hearts. Once I took a step back and was out on my own, and couldn't sit back and pay the professional to give me a “thus saith the Lord” anymore. I needed to start hearing Gods voice for myself. I have seen many who have left organized religion behind still battling with this and 5 years down the line they are still reliant on hearing sermons via the internet from the same guys saying the same old things. As important as it is to learn from others, we have to learn to hear Gods voice for ourselves. And he really has 2 primary ways of speaking to us, one being through scripture and the other being to our hearts. Yet most people are taught that they cannot trust their hearts and so they never learn sensitivity to the Spirits nudging. And the truth is that we cannot rely on scripture alone to guide us into all truth because even those who have it cannot seem to agree on its interpretation. We need to exercise ourselves in both interpreting scripture and hearing Gods voice until they can exist in perfect harmony.

2 – There are no vestigial organs in the body of Christ.

This is pretty simple, but I used to think that this meant that 95% of us were there to shake strangers hands at the church door once a week, help with slides on the screen during worship or help make coffee and be content warming a bench the rest of the service. Sadly, every little job the church may find for people to do is still to prop up that one man in front at the end of the day. The greeters make you feel welcome, the worship team gets you into the mood, the Sunday school teachers keep the kids away and the sound guy makes him heard, all so the preacher can deliver his sermon more effectively. In the true ekklesia, regardless of location, each one has a job that directly puts the spotlight on Christ. It may not happen at a certain time or location every week and it generally has nothing to do with a program. It is a natural outflow of living in Christ.

3 – Sola Scriptura sounds better than it really is.

This is in no way a criticism of scripture, neither is it meant to reflect negatively toward the importance of sound doctrine. I am truly thankful for the book that I have many worn out copies of on my shelf, which truly is inspired in a unique way. Many have given their lives that we may own it. However, this motto or mindset of “scripture alone” has been the cause of more division than any other factor in the last 2000 years. The protestant church has splintered into 46 000 denominations in just 500 years because it has chosen to center around the word that became ink rather than the word that became flesh.  Paul admonished the Corinthians for following men and dividing Christ (1 Cor 1:12-13). Yet we have totally chosen to ignore what he said, we have followers of Calvin, Wesley, Luther etc etc. Where brothers are centered on Christ, there can be disagreements and unity.

4 – Let’s not forsake fellowship.

Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together is vital. Yet the institutional model only creates the illusion of fellowship. A few smiles, some singing followed with staring at the back of somebody’s head for an hour or so was not what the author of Hebrews had in mind (it couldn't have been because church services had not even been invented yet). The truth is that we need each other; scripture is filled with “one anothering” verses. We cannot love as Christ instructed if the church does not become relationally focused beyond the Sunday gathering.

5 – It’s about the kingdom, not about religion.

Religions have many things in common; they all have clergies and laity, priests and laymen, places of worship, holy days and money boxes. Christ never came to start another religion though, He preached what the New Testament calls the gospel of the kingdom, so did John the Baptist, the 12 disciples and the other well known folk of the bible. Early Christianity was not even considered a religion, the Romans in their ignorance even mocked the Christians thinking that they were atheists. It was not until hundreds of years after Pentecost that Christianity under Constantines guidance became a religion. “The Pilgrim Church” and “The Torch of the Testimony” are 2 great books dealing with the subject.

6 – The gospel of salvation is a half truth.

John 3:16 is true and it is truly good news, but it is still only a half truth. Scripture does not speak of the gospel of salvation, nor does it speak of the gospel of finances and prosperity as one lady tried to convince me while channel flipping earlier today. The gospel is of a kingdom and a King! A casual stroll through the New Testament reveals this and while it is certainly Gods desire for everyone to change the way they think, call on Christ and be born again. His plan is bigger than that! The gospel of salvation is self centred, while the gospel of the kingdom is about God. The gospel of salvation deals primarily with two events, the moment of salvation and the moment we go to heaven, whereas the gospel of the kingdom deals with our transference from one kingdom into another in the now!. The gospel of salvation is great, but there is so much more than that.

7 – The love of Christ compels us, not the obligation to perform.

Religion thrives on using shame to get people to do things. And of course we like to measure our works against those of others because we never quite know if we are doing enough. If Christ has not put it in your heart to love and serve, then I think that we need to check our motives for doing the things that we are doing.

8 – Religion is dangerous.

The world laughs at Christians, the atheists are not shy to poke fun at us and very rarely can we argue with their accusations because what they say is generally true. Sadly, I always find myself pleading with them to see the difference between Jesus and what he taught as opposed to the organizations and peoples who “represent” him. I do believe religion (as we use the word in modern times) within any faith can be dangerous, including Christianity. It creates Pharisees and the only thing more dangerous than unrighteousness people is self righteousness people.

9 – God is not who I thought he was.

In the last 3 years my perception of who our Father is has dramatically changed from someone who would kill his own son so that he could again talk to us (doesn't seem fair or just does it?), into a Father who loved his creation so much that he was actively involved in the redemption of it. I think a lot the “cheap grace” teachers out there have given grace a bad rep because of a lack of understanding regarding sanctification. Likewise those who slam the grace of God don’t seem to understand “justification". I have so fallen in love with the story of the Prodigal son in Luke 11. God is so big and we will continually be learning more of who he is far into eternity, I am confident in His love as portrayed in that one short story of the loving Father who shows grace and love to the prodigal son and then extends the same love to the equally lost older brother.  

10 –Our life is in the vine.

John 15 has also really come alive for me, learning that the Christian life is not one of trying to follow the new set of rules which overthrew the Mosaic ones, but one of surrender to Him. Only Christ can live like Christ did, but he can do it through us as well, as long as we allow him to do so. A branch cannot bear fruit of its own accord, cut it off from its source and it withers and dies…