Sunday, March 21, 2010

Counterfeit Gospels

New pastor of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, Tullian Tchividjian, has posted a great challenge concerning counterfeit gospels here. Here is an excerpt from his post at the Gospel Coalition.

In light of Paul Tripp coming to Coral Ridge this weekend, I’ve gone back through a lot of my Paul Tripp books–he’s such a huge gift to the church!

In one of his books (co-authored with Tim Lane), How People Change, he identifies seven counterfeit gospels—-”religious” ways we try and “justify” or “save” ourselves apart from the gospel of grace. I found these unbelievably helpful. Which one (or two, or three) of these do you tend to gravitate towards?

Formalism. “I participate in the regular meetings and ministries of the church, so I feel like my life is under control. I’m always in church, but it really has little impact on my heart or on how I live. I may become judgmental and impatient with those who do not have the same commitment as I do.”

Legalism. “I live by the rules—rules I create for myself and rules I create for others. I feel good if I can keep my own rules, and I become arrogant and full of contempt when others don’t meet the standards I set for them. There is no joy in my life because there is no grace to be celebrated.”

Mysticism. “I am engaged in the incessant pursuit of an emotional experience with God. I live for the moments when I feel close to him, and I often struggle with discouragement when I don’t feel that way. I may change churches often, too, looking for one that will give me what I’m looking for.”

Activism. “I recognize the missional nature of Christianity and am passionately involved in fixing this broken world. But at the end of the day, my life is more of a defense of what’s right than a joyful pursuit of Christ.”

Biblicism. “I know my Bible inside and out, but I do not let it master me. I have reduced the gospel to a mastery of biblical content and theology, so I am intolerant and critical of those with lesser knowledge.”

Therapism. “I talk a lot about the hurting people in our congregation, and how Christ is the only answer for their hurt. Yet even without realizing it, I have made Christ more Therapist than Savior. I view hurt as a greater problem than sin—and I subtly shift my greatest need from my moral failure to my unmet needs.”

Social-ism. “The deep fellowship and friendships I find at church have become their own idol. The body of Christ has replaced Christ himself, and the gospel is reduced to a network of fulfilling Christian relationships.”

As I said two weeks ago in my sermon, there are outside-the-church idols and there are inside-the-church idols. It’s the idols inside the church that ought to concern Christians most. It’s easier for Christians to identify worldly idols such as money, power, selfish ambition, sex, and so on. It’s the idols inside the church that we have a harder time identifying.

For instance, we know it’s wrong to bow to the god of power—but it’s also wrong to bow to the god of preferences. We know it’s wrong to worship immorality—but it’s also wrong to worship morality. We know it’s wrong to seek freedom by breaking the rules—but it’s also wrong to seek freedom by keeping them. We know God hates unrighteousness—but he also hates self-righteousness. We know crime is a sin—but so is control. If people outside the church try to save themselves by being bad; people inside the church try to save themselves by being good.

The good news of the gospel is that both inside and outside the church, there is only One Savior and Lord, namely Jesus. And he came, not to angrily strip away our freedom, but to affectionately strip away our slavery to lesser things so that we might become truly free!

As I said two weeks ago in my sermon, there are outside-the-church idols and there are inside-the-church idols. It’s the idols inside the church that ought to concern Christians most. It’s easier for Christians to identify worldly idols such as money, power, selfish ambition, sex, and so on. It’s the idols inside the church that we have a harder time identifying.

For instance, we know it’s wrong to bow to the god of power—but it’s also wrong to bow to the god of preferences. We know it’s wrong to worship immorality—but it’s also wrong to worship morality. We know it’s wrong to seek freedom by breaking the rules—but it’s also wrong to seek freedom by keeping them. We know God hates unrighteousness—but he also hates self-righteousness. We know crime is a sin—but so is control. If people outside the church try to save themselves by being bad; people inside the church try to save themselves by being good.

The good news of the gospel is that both inside and outside the church, there is only One Savior and Lord, namely Jesus. And he came, not to angrily strip away our freedom, but to affectionately strip away our slavery to lesser things so that we might become truly free!

I really, really like that last paragraph! How many are you tempted to believe instead of the biblical gospel of Jesus Christ? [SDG-JS]

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Dr. Mouw on the Belhar Confession

One of the issues facing our denomination this summer in Minneapolis will be lack of mosquito repellent. Oh, excuse me, my mind was wandering a bit back to my childhood encounters with what is affectionately known as the "Minnesota Air Force."

Actually, one of the issues facing us will be the adoption of the Belhar Confession into our Book of Confessions. Presbyterians are people of three books. Our primary book is the Bible, the Word of God. Our second is the Book or Confessions, which are faithful expositions of what scripture teaches, and guides for the church through the ages. Two creeds are universally acknowledged by Christian. Two are Protestant. And the other seven are from the Reformed stream.

The Belhar Confession comes from South Africa. You can read it here.It was written in a suburb of Johannesburg called Belhar in 1982, and was adopted by the Dutch Reformed Church in 1986. Originally written in Afrikaans, it has been translated into English. The themes of Belhar are unity, reconciliation and justice. You can imagine that these would be pressing issues in South Africa in the early to mid-1980's.

Dr. Richard Mouw (President of Fuller Theological Seminary) has a  great reflection on this subject here. His concerns are more succinct than my own, so I will highlight just a section of his writing.
I have said in the past that I don’t think this is a good idea, for at least three reasons. One is that some folks have seen Belhar, which had its origins in South Africa as an important theological word against apartheid, as now serving the cause of promoting same-sex ordinations and unions. A second is that I do not find Belhar sufficiently explicit in grounding its important message in biblical authority. And the third is that I worry about an ongoing confessional drift in those denominations, and wonder how adding yet another confessional document will mean anything important where there is already widespread ignorance of—and in some cases overt hostility toward—specific teachings in the existing confessional documents.
I think he nails it pretty well, especially the "confessional drift" in the denomination. If we are not holding biblical/confessional standards now, why add another confession? Thanks, Dr. Mouw, for a timely and thoughtful reflection. [SDG-JS]