Month: April 2019

Growing up in my neighborhood, my friends and I would often hold wrestling contests like those we saw on TV.  One of our rules of engagement was if someone got into a situation he couldn’t get out of, he would simply say “uncle” (our version of tapping the mat or raising a white flag) and his opponent was obligated to let him go.  It was a statement of surrender….for the moment!  But we all knew it would start all over again later.   Nothing had really changed.  Sometimes people “come to Christ” with the same mentality.  They have little intention of changing their lives and discipleship is totally irrelevant. 

In order to understand the foundation for discipleship on the resurrection side of the cross, we need a clear understanding of the gospel.  We need to correctly answer three questions:

• What is the gospel?
• What issues does it resolve?
• What is the required response?

I have suggested in previous blogs that the gospel is the narrative of Jesus Christ the Lord and His kingdom (Rom 1:1-4).  It is His story – all of it from His incarnation to the final courtroom. 

The second question is what issue(s) does the gospel resolve?  In blog 51, I made a distinction between proximate (immediate) issues and causal (root) issues.  Both are real, but the former is symptomatic while the latter is the underlying issue.

Scripture describes many proximate issues:

Fallen, lost, dead, missed the mark, broken, guilty, shameful, unbeliever, sick, captive, slave, brokenhearted, poor blind, oppressed, etc.

However, the causal issue goes much deeper and is found in the very beginning of humanity.  Adam’s sin was more than violating a command of God.  It was deliberate and outright rebellion from God’s authority and leadership over his life.  The result is that we are all born into the kingdom of rebellion and are individually complicit with it.  This condition is also described as being ungodly, haters of God, children of wrath, children of the devil, those without law.  We are rebels against God, declaring our independence from His authority. 

When presenting the gospel, it seems more compassionate to infer a person is lost rather than a rebel.  But if we don’t identify the underlying issue, we rob the gospel of its power and marginalize the freedom that it brings. 

The third question is what is the required response that must be made?  If we are simply lost, then we need to be found; if broken, then we need to be mended; if poor, than we need resources, etc.   But if we are rebels, what is required?  Jesus began His ministry announcing the gospel of the kingdom and said, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe the gospel” (Mark 1:15).

Two words we tend to use interchangeably are surrender and repent.  I would submit, however, there is a critical distinction that should be made.  Surrender is an act of giving up, saying, “I quit.  I can’t go on”.  It is like tapping the mat, the white flag, or saying “uncle”.   It implies submission (temporary) but not allegiance. 

In WW II, POWs were soldiers who had surrendered.  Most were held in camps of internment with various levels of treatment.  A few tried to escape and return to the fight, but most simply waited until the war was over to return to their country of origin.   The main point is that although POW’s surrendered, they did not change their allegiance to the country in which they were held captive. 

I am concerned that too many times we present a gospel response that looks a lot like surrender.  People feel overwhelmed with their sin, guilt, shame, fears or other proximate issues and finally say “I quit” or “I give up; get me out of my mess”.

Repentance, however, is not only surrender but a change of allegiance.  It is a turning from self-governance to Christ-governance.  It is renouncing our loyalty to self and pledging loyalty to Christ.    

ISBE:  Repent = to change the mind

The word μετανοέω, metanoéō, expresses the true New Testament idea of the spiritual change implied in a sinner’s return to God. The term signifies “to have another mind,” to change the opinion or purpose with regard to sin. It is equivalent to the Old Testament word “turn.”

It is one thing to be bested, beaten, or defeated.  It is a whole different thing to change the loyalty of our hearts and minds to embrace Christ as our new and final authority.  The gospel demands not only surrender but a new allegiance.  Repentance is more than the acknowledgement that we have blown it, made a mess or even violated God’s moral code.  It is life under new management. 

Surrender without allegiance creates a syncretistic¹ gospel, one that reinforces the myth that “life is still all about me” but hopefully with less pain. 

The gospel response that brings new life is more than saying “uncle”.  It is the reset of our hearts to live under the rule of our benevolent King and gracious Father.  It is to renounce our rebellion and pledge our allegiance to our Creator.  The gospel Jesus preached and the one the early church embraced was a radical invitation to leave our rebellion against God and come back home as the prodigal son did.    

Questions for reflection:

1.  How could you guide a spiritual conversation from proximal issues to casual ones?

2.  Reflect on 1 John 3:8, “The one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil.”

¹ Syncretism (Dictionary.com): The attempted reconciliation or union of different or opposing principles or practices.

In an increasingly skeptical world filled with moral relativism, the idea of sin is no longer a clearly understood or accepted concept.  When sharing the gospel, our typical introduction is to establish the biblical truth of the moral depravity of man beginning with Adam’s sin.  From there we move to the moral code of God as summed up in the Ten Commands which we have all broken at some point making sin universal.  I have sinned.  You have sinned.  And even if we have broken only one command, James writes, we have broken all of them (James 2:10).  We are all law breakers.  We are all guilty.

Or we may begin with identifying the felt need of the individual:  their greatest pain or hurt.  We then compassionately explain that God loves them, wants to relieve their pain and give them an abundant life.  First, however, they must ask forgiveness for their sins and then God will come into their life and straighten up the mess.

However, what is our approach if the person has no recognized felt need or doesn’t believe that he is held responsible to an ancient religious moral code?  I have been asked, “Why would a loving God send people to an eternal hell for temporary moral infractions during their lifetime?   Maybe if they committed some heinous act it would be just, but surely not for lying or cheating once in a while.  Maybe they didn’t do as much good as they could have, but they certainly did some good.”

At this point my typical answer dealt with contrasting the holiness of God and our unrighteousness.  If we rightly understood how holy God is and how sinful we are, we would not be surprised at the severity of God’s judgment.  This is all true, but does it deal with the causal issue?

Jesus said the real causal problem lies with our rebellious hearts (Luke 6:45, Jeremiah 17:9, Ezek. 36:25).  Without a heart transplant, we are like walking dead.    Ultimately we are judged not simply on the basis of our diseased heart that sins but for refusing to accept the offer of a spiritual heart transplant (John 3:18).

As I suggested in the previous blog, if the gospel is to be good news, it must deal with the causal issue not just a proximal issue.  If the gospel doesn’t deal with the root problem of rebellion against God (Sin) then we will never be free.  We may look better on the outside, but we are not really free from the bondage of Sin.

Consider the familiar parable that Jesus taught called the Prodigal Son.  What if we looked at it through the lens of his causal issue vs. proximal issue? 

The basic story line is of a young son who demanded his inheritance early in order to take off and live a wild and sensuous life.  Eventually his lifestyle catches up with him.  Broke, friendless, and alone he decides to return to his father who graciously welcomes him back with a party.  The older brother (confused, jealous, and angry) complains of injustice to his father.  The father quickly then returns the conversation back to the younger brother and the celebration.  A great story of compassion, mercy and grace given by the father to his immoral son. 

But consider an optional story line.  The younger son asking for his inheritance early was just a symptom…the proximal issue.  What he really wanted was to get out from under the authority of his father.  He felt constrained and wanted to run his own life without his father’s interference.  He leaves his home out of rebellion.  He takes the benefits graciously given by a generous father and uses them as he pleases.  He leaves home for another place where his lifestyle is supported and celebrated.  His lifestyle and that of his friends is a rebellious statement against all that his father stands for. 

Now let’s suppose that his pain finally becomes unmanageable and he remembers the gracious nature of his father.  He decides to write a letter of apology to his father, confessing his immorality and owning up to the pain, suffering, sorrow that he has brought on himself.  He even admits he disappointed his father, maligned his reputation, and left him shorthanded on the ranch.  He even reluctantly admits it was a selfish act, disrespectful, and he can never undo the damage done.

He asks his father for a “pardon” (release from for further retribution).  Then he closes with the request for a little more cash since he is frankly broke and could use a little seed money to start his new life.  How would that version play out back home on the ranch?  How would the father respond to that letter?

In the original story we are told that the son did not send a letter (or tweet an apology).  Reunited with his father he did not even say he was sorry.  He just came home.  He came back where he belonged. 

He did say to his father, “I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me as one of your hired men”.  Translation:  “I have come home to live under your authority.  You can put me in your household wherever you want and I will let you be the head.  It is your right and I now recognize that”.

This story is one of repentance (not merely confession).  He renounced his adopted country of rebellion and returns to be a living sacrifice of loving allegiance and devotion to his father.  His father’s acceptance was not based on his son’s sense of guilt or sorrow (it was not essential to the story), but on his decision to come home. 

His pain and suffering made him aware of the slavery of the country in which he had been living.  His repentance was a change of places/countries/kingdoms.  His pain taught him there was no hope of a renewed life in the country of rebellion…..no way to freedom as long as he lived in revolt against his father.  He recognized that he had been living in a place where rebellion, pushing the limits, doing your own thing, was the creed.  He had gone there because he knew that self-rule was facilitated and celebrated.

His decision was not to live a better life in rebel territory by reforming and changing his priorities.  He didn’t promise to tell his friends how generous his dad was or start up a recovery clinic for displaced people.  He simply, humbly came home to live under his father’s gracious authority.

That is the good news of the gospel: we can now come home!

Questions for reflection:

What do the following biblical terms imply about the condition of man apart from Christ?  How does the gospel deal with each?

• Sinner (Rom. 3:23; Isa.59:1-2)
• Lost (Luke 15, Matt. 18:11)
• Dead (Eph. 2:1,5)                                            
• Blind (2Cor. 4:4)
• Gone astray (Isa. 53:6)
• Children of wrath (Eph. 2:3)
• Broken (Zec. 11:16; Ezek. 34:16)