How Can God be Trusted?

I can’t believe that I’m doing this. I mean, how foolish is it for an “armchair theologian” to attempt to say something meaningful and intelligent about the Book of Job on his first day back at the blog in nearly a week? It’s not like Job isn’t one of the most difficult books in the Bible for the “professionals” to get a grip on; at least that’s what I’ve read repeatedly over this past week. Anyway, it’s what’s been on my mind so here goes.

Dave Carlson of Fresh Read has recently been looking at the book of Job. While visiting over there, I invited Dave to take a look at something that I wrote about the vindication of God as a theme in Job. After reading it, he left the following comment:

“I am not sure  the Lord feels the need to vindicate himself-perhaps that is why some critics of the ‘God Speeches’ don’t feel satisfied.”

His comment set off a series of thoughts that went something like this: Since God feels no need for vindication (assuming that’s true, which is a thread to follow another day), why is His vindication in the text? Why is the vindication of God important? And to whom is it important? For nearly a week, I’ve been reading, thinking and writing my way through these questions. Since I have a self-imposed deadline to write on Thursday of each week, here’s what I’ve come up with this far.

The vindication of God is important to Job because it is his vindication as well. This is essentially what I said in the post which Dave read and commented upon. (Wonders for Oyarsa appears to agree with me, for what it’s worth .) God says Job is “blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil”. Satan says Job is not. He accuses God of buying Job off with blessings and safety. He says that Job will turn from God if these things are taken away. The trial begins but in the end Job remains righteous and God is proved right. Job, like God, also claims that he is innocent of sin. His friends see his suffering, believing that only the guilty suffer as punishment from God, and accuse him of lying. Job maintains his integrity and refuses to sin against God. When God shows up, He approves of Job as one who has “spoken of me what is right” and makes Job a mediator (or even a priest) between Him and the three “friends”. Job’s righteousness both vindicates God and is vindicated by God.

In his essay “The Cohesive Issue of mishpat in Job” , Carl Schultz says that divine justice is the central theme of the book and I followed his argument easily enough. However, as I thought about it more, it occurred to me that the questions accompanying divine justice are the questions of earth, not heaven. Why do the innocent suffer? How can a just God so cruelly afflict His creature, whom He says is “blameless”? Where is justice when the wicked live well and the righteous suffer and are killed? These are Job’s questions from his earth-bound perspective. They are the questions of earth, and certainly they are important questions. However, the text does not answer them, not really. When God speaks with Job at the end of the story, He doesn’t explain why Job suffered and He does not offer any defense of or insight into His justice. Instead, the only questions that are answered in the story are the questions of heaven. The questions of heaven are: Who is right about Job’s character, God or Satan? Who knows the heart of Job specifically (and men generally) better? Which of these two are more credible? Who can be trusted? The affliction of Job is permitted in order to answer these questions and it is their answers which demonstrate why the vindication of God is important to the reader.

God’s vindication is important to the reader because it shows that He is worthy of trust. If Job sins in his affliction, God is proved wrong and Satan is proved right. God may be powerful, but He is shown to be self-deceived about His own creation. God’s credibility is compromised. How can the “sons of God” trust His wisdom and judgment ever after? So, God initiates a public trial of his credibility for the benefit of His creation, both those inside the story and those outside reading the story.

Job trusted in God. In the beginning, he believed as his friends did; that God is just and that He inflicts suffering on the wicked for their sins. By permitting Satan to bring horrible suffering  upon Job, who knew his own innocence, God created the circumstances in which Job’s trust in Him would be tested. Job’s choice was to either trust in his own limited and uninformed understanding of his circumstances or in the omniscient sovereignty and justice of the Lord. The reader of Job is faced with this same choice.

In a sense, I think that the choice for the reader is complicated by his knowledge of the back story. Job doesn’t know what’s going on in the heavens. He doesn’t know that His suffering is actually a result of God’s praise of him before the heavenly court and Satan, rather than God’s condemnation of Him for some secret sin. But the reader knows and, like Job, his trust in the Lord is assaulted. While Satan may bring the accusation and commit the crimes, it is clear that God is responsible. He staged the drama and He never once rebuked Job for giving Him the credit for the action of the story. As a result, Satan is given an opportunity to raise in the mind of the reader the same questions raised in heaven in the first chapter: Can you trust a God who is more concerned with His own credibility than He is with the life of Job; a man that God Himself says is righteous and fears Him? How can you believe in such a “monster…who is more interested in the wager than Job?” How can God be trusted?

The answer is found in Job.

Changes

Yep, even more of them.

Some of you might have noticed the new template, the revised name and even the revised About page. The explanation is simple: I’m having an identity crisis. At least as a blogger.

What kind of blogger am I? What kind of blogger do I want to become? You know, the standard questions that folks eventually ask before deleting a blog and going outside for a walk only to come home and start another blog all over again. (You know you’ve done it.) Well, this time I’m pretty sure that I’m not going to delete this blog. (Especially since I’ve managed to come up with a name that uses the letters A M T O G in my URL.) However, I would like to start again, if only mentally.

I know that I’m not a theologian or even a seminary student, but I do enjoy thinking, reading and writing about theology. I realize that I’m just educated enough to think that I’ve got something to say, when in fact I should probably just keep my blog shut and listen, however I tend to do my best learning through writing and discussion. So, I’ve decided to continue to post, but to do so less frequently. By allowing more time to pass between posts, I’ll be able to write longer pieces that I hope are better researched and thought-out. I’ll also be more conscientious about grammar and mechanics.

So, this is advanced notice for those few who check in from time to time: the next time I post will certainly not be two days from now. And when I do post again, I hope to have something more worth reading.

Post of Substance?

A friend of mine and I were corresponding a while back about blogging. He passed along some things for me to read about what constitutes good blogging, which I’ve tried to incorporate ever since. Some of the advice that I’ve tried to follow since reading it is to post concisely and frequently. A quick look through the archives will show that I don’t tend to have long posts and they come about every other day. Consequently, the quality of the posts is not always consistently good. Perhaps that would make AMTOG a good candidate for “Blog Euthanasia”, a term that comes from a lecture given at a recent Godblogger Convention in the states.

 

I learned about both the convention and the lecture over at Scriptorium Daily. Several of the writers associated with that site presented at the conference, but the one who spoke about “Trafficking in Substance: The Case for Blog Euthanasia” was Dr. Paul Spears. I’ve listened to the lecture twice now and I have conflicting feelings.

 

Spears has a high-view of blogging. He says toward the end of the lecture that  “Our job (as Christian bloggers) is to articulate the majesty of God in a way that’s properly evoking to our readers.” (italics mine) Everything up to that quote explained by analogy how to go about articulating the majesty of God and I agreed with and saw the good sense of all of it. The conflict arises when I think about where this person posts.

 

To me, Scriptorium Daily is not a blog. While it may use a blogging software to publish, I don’t consider it to be a blog because the comments are disabled. As I understand it, the key feature that transforms a static webpage into a dynamic blog is the comment utility. If readers cannot comment upon what they read and engage in a public discussion with the writer (and other readers), then the website in question is something other than a blog. So here is someone who lectures for nearly an hour about how to craft (a word that was used often) a blog of substance yet writes for a blog that, to me, isn’t a blog. I feel an important disconnect here.

 

I recommend that Godbloggers listen to the lecture. Despite my conflicting feelings, I am considering acting on some of Dr. Spears’ points. Particularly, I’m thinking about posting less frequently in order to have time to think more deeply and write more reflectively and to edit more conscientiously.

The Called and the Chosen

About a week or so ago, I was thinking about the concept of being “called” by God; what it means when Christians say it and whether or not this is what it means in the Bible. In my thoughts, the verse from one of Jesus’ parables rose to the surface; “many are called but few are chosen”. The verse comes from a parable about a wedding banquet which I found  in the book of Matthew. I read it again carefully. Here’s what I found.

Matthew chose to place this parable in with a couple of others which, it seems, Jesus was telling to his audience in an effort to say something about God’s authority (which had been given to him). He had just told his listeners that he would not tell them the source of his authority because they would not acknowledge that John the Baptizer came from God. However, he does tell them about their current relationship to God and His authority. The first parable gives them an example of a son who submits to his father’s authority and one who doesn’t. Through it, Jesus implies that his listeners are like the second son. In the second parable, Jesus tells what will happen to those who do not submit to this authority: they will be destroyed. Finally we come to the parable in question; the parable of the wedding banquet. I think that this parable was intended to show the audience that as a result of their rejection of Jesus’ authority (God’s authority) and their punishment for this rejection, the way would be opened for Gentiles to become part of “the people of God”.

The king in the parable is God. The son is Jesus. The banquet is the rule and fellowship of God through Jesus as foretold by the prophets. The invited guests are the children of Israel, the Jews, Jesus’ audience. The servants are the prophets that God sent to the people. The people on “the street corners”, “the good and the bad” are the Gentiles, the rest of the world. The under-dressed man whom the king had bounced from the party represents one of the “bad”, those who attempt to enter the kingdom on their own terms instead of on those of the king.

The call that Jesus refers to when he says “many are called” is the call to fellowship with God. That fellowship is predicated on Jesus. The whole reason for the party in the first place is to celebrate the joining of the Son of the King to his betrothed, the one(s) promised to him. Obviously the call to fellowship goes out to the whole world; Jews (the invited) first and then non-Jews (the uninvited). Good and bad folks (whatever those terms mean) from both groups are called to come. The call is not to a mission, a job or a Divine course of action. It’s a call to dwell with God just like mankind did in the beginning.

So, who are the chosen few who get to be where God is and party with him and his Son? It seems from the story that the chosen few are the ones who came dressed for the occasion. They had showered and shaved, and were wearing their party clothes. Surprisingly, Jesus uses one man to represent the majority of folks who attempt to crash the party and come to God on their own terms, unclean, unshaven and undressed. The king in the story doesn’t allow gate-crashers to ruin the party for the other guests and neither does God.

Same Blog, New Name

As I said recently, I’ve never been completely satisfied with the name of this blog, so I’ve decided to try on this new moniker.

Since I’m not trained or educated in the discipline of Theology, I think the new name is a more accurate reflection of who I am (today) as a blogger…and it allows me to continue using amtog in my URL for a little longer, which will avoid confusion among my myriad readers.

Speaking of old bloggers with new names, my wife discovered that Lionel of Black and Reformed is now blogging with two other folks over here. I’m glad he’s not entirely gone.

I Need a Muslim

Truth Booth is a blog by Stefan Rosty, a Muslim who seems to advocate something akin to a “Sola Scriptura” approach to Islam. His position and/or plea is available here. I’m hoping that either Stefan or another writer on his blog will pay a visit to AMTOG and answer this question for me:

• What does the Qu’ran say is the reason that the Jews wanted to kill Jesus?

The question is worded this way purposefully. I’m familiar enough with Islam to know that the story from its perspective is that Jesus was not crucified, but rather someone, whom Allah caused to look like Jesus, was crucified in His stead.

This is not an invitation for a debate or a “Christian-Muslim Dialogue” (Christian came first because it’s my blog and I asked the question. ) It’s a sincere request for information. I figured I’d get an answer quicker than if I tried to hunt it down in an English language Qu’ran myself.

Thanks

Vanished

The blog Black and Reformed has been taken off the blogroll.

Sadly when I’ve tried to visit there lately, I’ve been getting a dead end. I don’t know if he’s quit or if Blogger is malfunctioning.

It’s too bad. I’d hoped to be able to check in from time to time for a perspective that I simply don’t have and would never hear from if I didn’t read his blog. If Black and Reformed passes this way, leave a comment and let me know what happened.

It’s About Time

When I decided to start this blog, I thought that “All My Thoughts on God” was a clever title. I thought that it had a sort of pop-culture vibe as a result of being lifted from a popular song by a group that, honestly, I never cared all that much about. (I just liked the one song, and really I only liked the music and that one bit of verse since I didn’t understand any of the other words…but I’m getting off topic.)

A quick run through the archives will show that I actually don’t write about God. Not really. In fact, the section at the top of the right column called “AMTOG is…” sums up this blog far more accurately than the title. However things are about to change. I think it’s time that I have a post that is about God. So here it is.

Sort of.

I’m not actually going to write my thoughts on God. Instead, I’m going to link to some other posts about God for you to enjoy while I try to put the baby to sleep. Once she’s snoozing away in her swing, I’m going to kick back and watch a movie while the wife is at a farewell party for a friend. Later, when I’m able to fully digest these two posts, I may take a stab at writing some commentary of my own about them or I may go fix myself a cup of tea (with milk, sugar and pinch of masla!) and see what interesting podcasts I can download on iTunes.

So, here are two posts filled with (someone else’s) thoughts about God.

One

Two

I should probably think about changing the name of the blog…

Come As You Are

I recently read through Yahoo news that San Francisco is considering providing places for intravenous drug users to shoot-up. Of course, the supporters of such a program say that this is the humane thing to do. The assert that those people need a safe place and the competent hands of a trained nurse to administer the various drugs to which they are addicted.

Jesus is like those kind-hearted folks in San Francisco. He accepts folks as they are, where they are. However, Jesus doesn’t perpetuate the inhuman condition in which people come to Him. He doesn’t keep them addicted, dependent and weak. He restores their lives, makes them dependable and strong.

“Safe” places for drug abuse may be a human response, but it most certainly is not humane.

It’s a Metaphor

I enjoy reading the blogs and apologetic websites of folks in the Reformed Theology camp, which is good because there seems to be a lot of them out there. Yet, there are times when I get a bit frustrated with Calvinists. Most recently, I felt this frustration with an Australian Presbyterian pastor whose sermon I was listening to.

The sermon was on the doctrine of Total Depravity, which essentially says that there is absolutely nothing in all of Creation that has not been broken (corrupted) by the Fall of Adam and Eve. When it comes to humans, the Calvinist position tends to be that we are so corrupt that we are incapable of having a faith that results in salvation (aka “saving faith”). The metaphor that is used to illustrate this comes from Paul’s letter to the Ephesians.

As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. (Eph. 2:1-2)

The pastor argued that just as a material corpse is non-responsive to external stimuli, so is a spiritual corpse. Before the dead spirit can accept the grace of God, it must be brought to life by the Spirit of God.

I think this is simply forcing the metaphor to say more than what Paul meant for it to say.  It’s a metaphor! The letter to the Ephesians is full of them. Gentiles are said to be “far away” from God, while Jews are said to be “near” and yet it’s clear that Paul isn’t talking about distance. He’s making a statement about relationship. Paul says in Chapter 2 that Jesus made “one new man out of the two”, but no one would suggest that Paul was saying that Jesus physically fused two male human beings. He was referring to classes of people; insiders and outsiders or simply enemies and their reconciliation.  Later in Chapter 5, Paul says to the Ephesian Christians “You were once darkness but now you are light in the Lord.” He didn’t mean: people =  darkness  or even people= light. Even the phrase “in the Lord” is a metaphor. Metaphors are limited and do not indicate a direct 1 to 1 correlation.

When he says that we were “dead in transgressions” Paul is simply making a strong statement about the abhorrent state of humans apart from Christ. Without Christ, we are as good as dead because when Jesus comes to judge the world, we will be separated from Him who is the Truth and the Life. (I tend to think that the expression here is similar to the one that we’ve heard in other contexts where someone ominously threatens to kill someone by saying, “You’re dead meat!” ) Whenever someone lays hold of this metaphor of the human condition apart from Christ and makes it say that humans are as responsive to the call of God as a dead dog is to the call of it’s owner, I think they’re saying something that Paul was not saying.

The View from Outside

Take a moment to read this article about American Evangelicalism’s relationship with the phenomena of divorce.

I don’t know if David Van Biema, the author of the above article, is a Christian or not but I’m going to take a guess and say that he’s not.

So what?

Nothing really, except that sometimes I find the perspective of outsiders interesting. The reason that I believe he’s an outsider to the Christian community is his choice of words, his phraseology. Take this sentence as an example:

The heated controversy provoked by the story showed how Biblically flexible some Evangelicals can be – especially when God’s word seems at odds not just with modern American behavior, but also with simple human kindness.

Consciously or not, Bieman has effectively identified two opposing sides in the debate on divorce: God and humans (particularly “modern American”s). It appears that from his perspective, God (as represented by Evangelicals) is both out of step and unkind in his opposition to divorce while Americans are both “with it” and kind by comparison. Or perhaps, his position is that Evangelicals are finally doing the smart thing by facing up to the facts and changing their position on the issue of divorce and then reinterpreting their holy book accordingly. These are two perspectives that I would expect from an outsider.

Another example of what seems to me an outsider perspective is in this sentence: “Evangelicals define themselves as being tightly bound by scripture.” Bound, like bondage. Slavery. Deprived of freedom. I can understand how an outsider might feel that Evangelicals are enslaved by their belief that the Bible is God’s word.

Don’t most slaves want freedom? Don’t the majority of them want to escape? From Bieman’s perspective, the article by Instone-Brewer in Christianity Today, “appeared to be its editors’ attempt to offer Evangelicals an escape from a classic dilemma.”

Finally, look at what Bieman suggests that a softening on divorce among Evangelicals could lead to;

“Flexibility on divorce may mean that evangelicals could also rethink their position on such things as gay marriage, as a generation of Christians far more accepting of homosexuality begins to move into power. “

As a Christian with one foot in the Evangelical community (and the other foot in his mouth) I can say with some confidence that Bieman has misinterpreted the situation. An increase in compassion toward homosexuals is not the same thing as an increase in the acceptance of homosexuality. Admittedly, it’s an easy mistake for an outsider to make.

I’m curious: How would insiders to the Christian community reading this post attempt to address what I’ve called an outsider’s perspective on:

• the character of God and how it is revealed in the matter of divorce
• the relationship between Christians and the Bible (pertaining to divorce)
• the current attitudes of younger Evangelical Christians toward homosexuality

The comments are open.

Christians and Atheists Still Agree

In the practice of Arbitration and Negotiation (both professional and personal) , the principle of identifying “common ground” is expressed often and in different ways. The idea being that recognizing commonality builds rapport and empathy thereby allowing the conflicting parties to move more smoothly toward a resolution. As the atheists of the West (e.g. the USA) become more vocal in the media and conflict with theists (particularly Southern Baptists Christians) increases, I thought I would offer this post listing the beliefs shared by both groups. Of course, it’s impossible to speak accurately on behalf of each and every member of either camp, so please don’t pummel me with the deviants exceptions.

• Christians and atheists believe in absolute truth.
• Atheists and Christians believe that morality is innate in humans.
• Christians and atheists believe that the material universe exists (which is something that not all theists believe).
• Atheists and Christians believe that life in the material universe matters.

On the common ground of these shared beliefs, it is possible for Christians and atheists to meet…just before attempting to utterly annihilate one another.

Confession

I confess that I covet my neighbors’ blog traffic.

I’ve known for a long time that if I want readers for this blog, I’ve got to be a reader (and commenter) on other blogs. It’s hard to do simply because I feel like I have to scrabble for time just to post every other day on my blog, which I understand is a way to keep readers once you have them. But, I do try to visit the blogs on my blogroll and leave a comment or even post my thoughts here with a link to them. However, there are times when reading other peoples’ blogs and seeing the volume of comments that they get just brings me down.

Yesterday I visited Suddenly Christian for the first time in a while and enjoyed this funny post. Then I saw that there are 44 comments and I thought, “My blog sucks.” Last week, I visited the iMonk and again I saw the massive amount of comments that he tends to get on his rather long posts and again I was discouraged.

That’s the thing about coveting; it saps me of my drive. I tend to covet other people’s lives more than their possessions.  When I look at other folks and see their exciting careers, formidable intellects, and genuine talents, I tend to say to myself “Why bother?” and want to quit doing the things that I do. Especially when they are similar to the one’s that I covet.

This probably comes across as rather lame and perhaps I would be more embarrassed than I am for posting it if I thought more than 10 people would see it. Then again, do I really need 44 comments from folks saying, “Yeah, you’re right. You are lame.”

By the way, that’s a rhetorical question…but I leave the comments open just the same.

Christians and Atheists Agree

A while back, I published a post asking for atheists to leave their responses to a question that I had. Since then, I’ve read other, more intelligent posts and comments in the ongoing discussion/debate between theists and atheists at other blogs and I’ve realized something that I would like to share with the Christians out there.

When discussing the source of morality, I’ve heard atheists contend that a deity is not necessary. One atheist said (lost the blog, can’t link to it) that morality is simply hardwired (my term) into people. We’re born knowing what is right and wrong. I’ve noticed that the tendency for Christians  in this discussion is to be so focused on trying to prove that God is the source of morality and that He is necessary that they fail to see that the atheist has just said something that is completely in agreement with the teaching of Scripture. I’ll let you go back and read that wordy sentence again in case you missed what I said….

At least in the particular instance that I’ve described, we have an example where Christians and atheists are in agreement: both believe that morality is part of the make-up of human beings.  When Paul was attempting to explain to the Roman church that all humanity is under condemnation for disobeying God’s law, he alludes to this innate morality:

For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) Romans 2:13-15

Christians,we need to realize and remember that atheists have the moral law of God written on their hearts. They know what is right and wrong just like we do, and they experience guilt just like we do. Don’t get so caught up in the need to prove that you’re right and the atheist is wrong that you fail to see that even the atheist testifies to the truth of God’s word.

And if Christians and atheists can agree that morality is innate in humanity, what other things can they agree upon?

Jesus Christ, Therapist

Not long ago, I came across a blog called Apprising Ministries. The blogger had taken it upon himself to critique and criticize various ministries and their key personalities. As you might predict, the tone is often less than charitable, which (for me) makes anything the guy writes suspect. I took a look at what he had to say about Erwin McManus and the Mosaic church and I was unimpressed. I’ve been listening to the podcast from Mosaic for about a year or so and while I’ve often disagreed with Erwin’s take on various topics, I tend to believe that he’s a follower of Jesus and not a heretical, self-serving play-actor.

When I disagree, it tends to be along the lines of the call of God and purpose of life. He tends to be melodramatic and to speak like every one of us has a call in this life on the same order of the likes of Moses. Today, as I read the following, I began to see that this is the kind of message I tend to hear from Erwin:

THE CONTEMPORARY THERAPEUTIC GOSPEL

The most obvious, instinctual felt needs of twenty-first century, middle-class Americans are different from the felt needs that Dostoevsky tapped into. We take food supply and political stability for granted. We find our miracle-substitute in the wonders of technology. Middle-class felt needs are less primal. They express a more luxurious, more refined sense of self-interest:

• I want to feel loved for who I am, to be pitied for what I’ve gone through, to feel intimately understood, to be accepted unconditionally;
• I want to experience a sense of personal significance and meaningfulness, to be successful in my career, to know my life matters, to have an impact;
• I want to gain self-esteem, to affirm that I am okay, to be able to assert my opinions and desires;
• I want to be entertained, to feel pleasure in the endless stream of performances that delight my eyes and tickle my ears;
• I want a sense of adventure, excitement, action, and passion so that I experience life as thrilling and moving.

The modern, middle-class version of therapeutic gospel takes its cues from this particular family of desires. We might say that the target audience consists of psychological felt needs, rather than the physical felt needs that typically arise in difficult social conditions. (The contemporary “health and wealth” gospel and obsession with “miracles” express something more like the Grand Inquisitor’s older version of therapeutic gospel.)

In this new gospel, the great “evils” to be redressed do not call for any fundamental change of direction in the human heart. Instead, the problem lies in my sense of rejection from others; in my corrosive experience of life’s vanity; in my nervous sense of self-condemnation and diffidence; in the imminent threat of boredom if my music is turned off; in my fussy complaints when a long, hard road lies ahead. These are today’s significant felt needs that the gospel is bent to serve. Jesus and the church exist to make you feel loved, significant, validated, entertained, and charged up. This gospel ameliorates distressing symptoms. It makes you feel better. The logic of this therapeutic gospel is a jesus-for-Me who meets individual desires and assuages psychic aches.

The therapeutic outlook is not a bad thing in its proper place. By definition, a medical-therapeutic gaze holds in view problems of physical suffering and breakdown. In literal medical intervention, a therapy treats an illness, trauma, or deficiency. You don’t call someone to repentance for their colon cancer, broken leg, or beriberi. You seek to heal. So far, so good.

But in today’s therapeutic gospel the medical way of looking at the world is metaphorically extended to these psychological desires. These are defined just like a medical problem. You feel bad; the therapy makes you feel better. The definition of the disease bypasses the sinful human heart. You are not the agent of your deepest problems, but merely a sufferer and victim of unmet needs. The offer of a cure skips over the sin-bearing Savior. Repentance from unbelief, willfulness, and wickedness is not the issue. Sinners are not called to a U-turn and to a new life that is life indeed. Such a gospel massages self-love. There is nothing in its inner logic to make you love God and love any other person besides yourself. This therapeutic gospel may often mention the word “Jesus,” but he has morphed into the meeter-of-your-needs, not the Savior from your sins. It corrects Jesus’ work. The therapeutic gospel unhinges the gospel. (full article)

The Mosaic community is overwhelmingly 20-something and single. I think that plays a part in the popularity of Erwin’s perspective on the Gospel and the Christian life. After all, it’s a very self-centered phase of life and it would appear that the “therapeutic gospel” is also self-centered. As the writer of this text says, there’s a legitimate time and place for therapy both physical and spiritual, but there is also a time to grow up and go on to maturity

…and I’m struggling with doing just that.

EPILOGUE: In his recent sermon The Conflict (part 3 in the series about leading an original life), Erwin departs from the above description of the therapeutic gospel by addressing sin….which supports what I said in refutation of the assessment of his ministry at that Apprising Ministries blog.  (Nov. 6, 2007)