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)
You get yet another vantage point on the parable when interpreted through an honor / shame grid, rather than a truth / guilt grid.
Thanks for the thoughts! I feel like like we are using far too many words these days to say “sorry” when there is in fact no real regret over what has been done and certainly no brokeness nor intent to change. Even toward God we make excuses for our actions when there would be so much more freedom & joy in true brokeness. It is somewhat amazing that people have no felt need for God because they think they are so okay with themselves when they are obviously not okay with themselves.