stillhaventfound.org

I was in the midst of writing a long post on an important issue regarding grace (which has been brewing in my head for some time - actually, over 10 years!) then decided to make this a series of shorter posts, which would hopefully progressively build on each other and interactions with my readers.

The title of the original long post was meant to be “More radical than Joseph Prince?”. This is in relation to the issue of grace, and yes, the title hints at the blasphemous thought that maybe Joseph Prince isn’t radical enough on grace, in particular when, in my opinion, he says some things which is maybe said in (too much) concession to his critics.

OK, don’t crucify me yet for saying the above :) We’re all still learning (myself definitely!) and I’d love your feedback throughout this series of posts. I think it’ll be a very thought-provoking, and practical, series. Practical because theology is always practical and I’ll touch on how some of these uneasy questions about grace actually affect the lives of some of the readers I’ve communicated personally with.

To start off, here are two quotes from this article (quoting and paraphrasing Joseph Prince’s teaching in his Unmerited Favor book). A simple question: Is there any contradiction between the following two paragraphs? If so, why? If not, why not?

1) “My leaders have no qualms about confronting people who attend our church but insist on living in sin. They do not back down from the gospel of grace even if these people argue that they have the right to continue living as they please because they are ‘under grace.’ In fact, my leaders would tell them outright that they are not under grace, because according to Romans 6:14, if they are under grace, then sin shall not have dominion over them!” (emphasis mine)

2) Explaining his teaching, he related the story of one of his church leaders who for a time stopped attending church services because of marital and drinking problems, hoping to resume church attendance after he resolved his difficulties. But, just as people take a bath to clean themselves rather than clean themselves up before taking a bath, so people with problems go to Jesus Christ to resolve them rather than attempting to solve their problems first, the pastor told his member. Today, he said, that member is a happily married, has a beautiful family and is one of his trusted, key leaders.

Continuing on from Part 1, here’s a beautiful passage from Elyse Fitzpatrick’s Because He Loves Me (p. 110-111) on the relationship between the indicative and the imperative and how the latter is grounded in the former. It’s worth reading in its entirety:

[The relationship between the indicative and the imperative can be] summarized in the simple phrase ‘Be who you are.’ When theologians talk about the two categories we’re about to discuss, sometimes they use these words: the indicative and the imperative… When I use the term indicative I’m talking about what has already been indicated or declared about you. The indicative informs us of an accomplished fact. Here’s an indicative statement: “God in Christ has forgiven you.”

On the other hand, the imperative comes to us in the form of a command or direction. In Ephesians 4:32, Paul gives us this command: “Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another.” The New Testament is filled with the imperative: we’re commanded to live changed lives.

The beautiful balance between the indicative (who you are in Christ) and the imperative (who you’re becoming in Christ) is perfectly demonstrated in the verse we’ve been considering. The entire verse reads, “Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.” Can you see how the imperative, “Be kind, tenderhearted and forgiving,” is firmly anchored in the indicative, “you’re forgiven in Christ”? This verse demonstrates a beautiful synergy that not only tells us what to do, but also plants within our souls the only motive that will empower God-pleasing compliance: what God has already done. We’ve already been forgiven in Christ. So many of us cavalierly gloss over what he has done and zero in on what we’re to do, and that shift, though it might seem slight, makes all the difference in the world. Our obedience has its origin in God’s prior action, and forgetting that truth results in self-righteousness, pride, and despair.

In some cases, the New Testament writers couple indicative statements with both negative and positive imperatives, in other words, commands to stop doing one thing and to start doing another. For instance, we might read this kind of a statement: Because such-and-such is true about you (the indicative), you should put off this kind of behavior (the negative imperative) and put on this kind of behavior in its place (the positive imperative). Let me give you an example of this from Colossians 3:

If then you have been raised with Christ [the indicative], seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things that are above [a positive imperative], not on things that are on earth [a negative imperative]. For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory [the indicative]. Put to death therefore what is earthly in you [a negative imperative]. . . .Put on then [a positive imperative], as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved [the indicative], compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other [a positive imperative]; as the Lord has forgiven you [the indicative], so you also must forgive [a positive imperative]. (vv. 1—5, 12—13)

Through the use of this indicative/imperative paradigm, I trust that the relationship between who you already are and how he has called you to live has become clearer to you and that it will be a tool you’ll be able to use as you study Scripture in the future.

This article by The Christian Post is kinda interesting. It’s about what John Piper preached at the recent Passion 2010 conference. He said at the conference:

God demands that we all get on our face and worship Him, admire Him, treasure Him … and count Him as the supreme value in the universe and He’s angry when we don’t.

Do we love for God to love His glory … or is our vaunted God-centeredness a cloak for self-centredness by loving a God who is man-centered?

Basically, what he’s saying above is the same things he’s been saying in some of his books. I discussed a similar quote in a previous post of mine:

[M]any people are willing to be God-centered as long as they feel that God is man-centered. It is a subtle danger. We may think we are centering our lives on God, when we are really making Him a means to self-esteem. Over against this danger I urge you to ponder the implications, brothers, that God loves His glory more than He loves us and that this is the foundation of His love for us. (John Piper, Brothers, We Are Not Professionals)

Here are some more interesting quotes along the same lines from the written version of his sermon:

…many Christians think it is good for us to be God-centered, but don’t feel at all comfortable with God being God-centered.

What I have found in my own life, and in the life of many others, is that God’s God-centeredness is the test of whether our own God-centeredness is real: Do I rejoice in God’s unwavering commitment to uphold and display his glory—do I rejoice in God’s God-centeredness? Or am I God-centered only because deep down I believe God is man-centered, so that my supposed God-centeredness is really man-centeredness, even me-centeredness?

Does my opposition to God’s God-centeredness reveal that my supposed God-centeredness is just a cover for wanting myself at the center?

If you say in response: I thought Christ crucified for sinners and risen triumphantly was the heart of Christianity, you would be right. Paul said, “I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2). That’s true. But the amazing thing is that it’s the intersection of God’s apparent egomania with the human condition of sin that makes the cross of Christ necessary and makes it intelligible and reveals the deepest things about God in the death of Christ.

John Piper is someone I really respect. I think I’ll have some important disagreements with him, theology-wise. However, that may just be because he’s the much better theologian and thinker :-) He’s someone I’ll definitely give a hearing to when it comes to any issue and I think more often than not, I’ll agree with him.

Regarding what he says above, I haven’t read any of Piper’s books so I won’t be as familiar as others about what he says above, which I believe is very central to most or all of his writings. What he says is definitely thought provoking. I’ll suspend my conclusions for the time being - I’ll mull over what he says - and will be keen to hear what you guys think.

Thoughts anyone?

I wrote the below dialogue in 1997. I was a Reformed Christian then and struggling with what the true gospel was. Was it a hard gospel that demanded our all if we want to receive the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice? Or was it a gospel of free grace that merely required our faith in Christ and His finished work?

I was initially influenced by Walter Chantry’s Today’s Gospel - Authentic or Synthetic, which called for repentance and forsaking of sins as a condition for salvation. These three quotes below were taken from an earlier article of mine on New Creation Church and represent this hard gospel that is very common in evangelicalism today:

Without obedience, you shall not see life! Unless you bow to Christ’s sceptre, you will not receive the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice. (Walter Chantry, Today’s Gospel: Authentic or Synthetic?)

In common honesty, we must not conceal the fact that free forgiveness in one sense will cost everything. (JI Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God)

Salvation is for those who are willing to forsake everything. (John MacArthur Jr., The Gospel According to Jesus)

Such beliefs attracted me because God had recently changed my life and I wondered why there were so many “nominal” Christians in church. The conclusion I came to through reading from Christians such as the above was that the gospel being presented was a false gospel. “Cheap grace” was being presented. It was a gospel that didn’t demand our all. And that’s why there were so many people in the church who claimed to be Christians but did not show much or any fruit. The truth, I believed then, was that these people were probably not Christians in the first place because they were not presented with the true gospel message which called people to forsake sins and give all their lives for Christ in exchange for forgiveness of sins.

However, I changed my mind after encountering a grace-centered gospel through the people from the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals (ACE) (then called CURE), White Horse Inn (WHI) and Modern Reformation (MR) magazine - basically from Michael Horton and gang. It was during this period, when I read a lot and had lengthy theological email discussions with many Christians throughout the world about issues relating to grace, the gospel, the Lordship Salvation controversy, etc., that I came to my stance about the gospel of Jesus Christ - years before I heard about New Creation Church. It was probably around 1997, the same year Pastor Prince embraced the grace message.

It started when I realized how the Reformed and Lutheran Christians from ACE, WHI and MR were presenting the gospel so differently from other Reformed and Puritan Christians I read. I emailed some of Michael Horton’s colleagues. We exchanged pretty lengthy emails (I still have many of them today). They helped me tremendously in coming to my conviction about the gospel and the below dialogue was a summary of my thoughts which I asked one of them to comment on. I don’t have the email of his response, but the person was basically in agreement to what is written below (although, I have made minor changes to the original dialogue).

My point in recounting the above is twofold. Firstly, for those who think New Creation’s gospel of grace (as, for example, presented below) is some false gospel that is “cheap grace”, try reading writings (or listening to podcasts) from ACE, WHI and MR. Read Michael Horton’s books and articles. I came to embrace a free gospel of grace as presented below from these people and their writings/podcasts, not from Joseph Prince. Secondly, for Reformed Christians who think that Reformed theology and tradition are ONE regarding the gospel and what people need to do to be saved, think again. Paul Washer, a modern-day hero among many young Reformed Christians and one who preaches a really hard gospel, would respond to the Jailer’s question in Acts 16:30, “What must I do to be saved?” very differently from Michael Horton - and I would say from Paul and Silas too (Acts 16:31). Not just Paul Washer, but many Puritans too, and those influenced by some Puritan writings, would also answer the Jailer’s question quite differently from Horton and gang. Whoever is right on the gospel (or should I say whoever is right on what the proper and saving response to the gospel is) is an important question worthy of many blog posts. Suffice to say here that there is a division among Reformed Christians about this important question.

Anyway, enough of appetizer and on to the main course…

Peter : John, I don’t think I can ever make it.

John : What do you mean?

Peter : I don’t think I can ever become a Christian.

John : Why not ? It’s simple. All you have to do is realize you’re a sinner and accept what Jesus did on the cross for yourself. Trusting and calling upon His name will save you Peter. God promises that.

Peter : But I went to an evangelistic meeting the other day.

John : What did they tell you?

Peter : They said that unless one turns from his sin, one can’t come to Christ. They said that Christ is Lord and not only Savior and because of that we must respond to Christ in both his offices. We must trust him to save you and forsake sins. He said Christ can’t be divided. We can’t be saved by Christ unless we forsake sins. He says there are too many people who claim to be Christians nowadays, yet don’t show any fruits of being a Christian.

John : Well Peter, If turning from sins is the condition to be saved, I can’t make it myself.

Peter : But you’re so good. You pray, you read the bible and you evangelize. I can’t be like you. You’re one who turns from sins and believes in Christ. I can’t do that.

John : Peter, I don’t turn from sins because that will save me. I do so because I’ve already been saved. What saves me is Christ. I believe His work for me, that He died for me on that cross 2000 years ago. Peter, turning from sins does not save you. It’s a true result of trusting in Christ, but it’s not some condition for salvation. We’re justified and saved by faith alone. I’m not saved by forsaking my sins or making Jesus Lord.

Peter : This is quite a different message from what the evangelist said, John. Are you sure you’re right? In all the messages I’ve heard, I keep on hearing that Jesus is Lord and one must submit to Him by turning from sins or else one can’t be saved. You’re telling me a different story. You’re saying that Jesus Christ will save me here and now. You’re saying I don’t have to start forsaking sins but can be saved this moment.

John : That’s true Peter. It’s not our forsaking of sins that makes us more acceptable in Christ’s sight. It doesn’t prepare us to be accepted in Christ. Yes Peter, I’m telling you that you can be saved right now. Call upon the name of the Lord. Trust in Him this second and the Bible promises that you’ll be saved.

Peter : That’s really a blessing to hear. I thought I had to go through the loopholes of forsaking sins and submitting to Christ’s Lordship before I can be saved. You mean I don’t have to forsake sins and trust in Christ to be saved? All I have to do is trust in Christ?

John : Yes Peter, your salvation and assurance isn’t grounded in what you do, but grounded in what Christ did. Peter, do you remember what I told you last week? I was grieved and sad I became angry at my teacher last week. Remember that?

Peter : Yes, why?

John : Well, Peter, you may think I’m some saint and some holy guy, and that I never sin. But did I not sin then by being angry and swearing?

Peter : Yes, I guess you did.

John : Peter, if the evangelist says that one has to forsake sins and trust in Christ to be saved, do you think I was saved then when I sinned? I failed to forsake sins right?

Peter : Yes, but it was only a small sin!

John : There are no small sins. A sin is a sin!

Peter : Oh well, but I’m sure God will forgive you.

John : You’re absolutely right. But forgive me - why? Because I had been good previously in forsaking sins and surrendering to Christ’s Lordship. And this was only a small blunder for me. Is that the reason why He’ll forgive me?

Peter : No, because you’ve accepted His forgiveness.

John : But i thought you believed the evangelist who said that no one can come to Christ unless he forsake sins?

Peter : Well…errr. I see what you mean.

John : I hope you do. You’re saved not by what you do, but what Christ did.

Peter : Ya, I guess you’re right. But I’ve heard some who say that you must at least be “willing to forsake sins” or willing to obey Christ to be saved.

John : Well, this is also wrong. Let me tell you why. If I were to have that kind of theology (that one must believe in Christ, and in addition to that, be willing to forsake sins, to be saved) then let’s see how that applies to your life.

Peter : OK, how?

John : OK, I’m going to ask you now. Do you want to be saved?

Peter : Yes I do.

John : What do you have to do? Well, because I’m going to present that kind of theology as mentioned above, I’ll tell you that to be saved you have to be willing to forsake sins and to trust in Christ. Will you do that Peter? Are you willing right now to forsake sins and trust in Christ? You don’t have to forsake sins, just be willing only to forsake sins. And also trust in Christ.

Peter : Ok, I’ll accept that. I am willing to forsake sins and trust in Christ.

John : Then I’ll tell you that you’re saved.

Peter : Oh, is that all?

John : Well, you may think so now. You may feel assured now, but later on say that you meet a previous enemy of yours who used to beat you up and who raped your girlfriend. You confront him and try your best to love him. After all, you know that it’s not right to sin. But somehow, you got so overwhelmed by your emotions that you hit him hard. But it came so quickly. Immediately you run away. You’re sorry for your actions. But soon, you remember where you trust is in when you were told you were saved. Isn’t it a two-fold trust - 1) you trust in Christ 2) you have this willingness to forsake sins. Horrors, you think to yourself, ” Yes, I do trust in Christ to forgive me, and i was willing initially to forsake sins and not beat up that guy but instead love him. But all of a sudden, it just came all of a sudden. This shows that i was never really willing in the first place to forsake sins was I?” And Peter, if this happens, you’ll start to question your salvation, because your trust isn’t in Jesus Christ alone but in Jesus plus your willingness to forsake sins.

Peter : I see what you mean. It’s Jesus alone isn’t it? Oh dear, it’s Jesus alone that saves. How foolish I was to think that forsaking sins or being willing to forsake sins could save me. How foolish I was.

John : Peter, it’s OK. Man is inclined to think that works can help him. But it’s Jesus alone. Respond to Christ in faith alone and you’ll be saved. You’ll be saved where you are. You can be saved right now and here. This second, Peter, you can be saved. No need for preparation, just this second.

Peter : One last question. Does that mean that I can live a life of sinfulness after i trust in Christ and still be saved?

John : This is a wonderful question Peter. You know, this question is anticipated by Paul in Romans 6:1. This has always been the opposition against the free grace and gospel of Christ. Peter, one more reason why you can trust my gospel presentation and not that evangelist who called you to turn from sins (or at least be willing to do so) in order to be saved. It’s because my gospel presentation is exactly like the Bible’s. If Paul told his audience that they had to forsake sins in order to be saved or be willing to forsake sins, would Paul have faced such a question in Romans 6:1? You see, if we try to say that somehow the forsaking of sins is some condition for being saved, who in the world would ask whether they could continue in sin? After all, if forsaking sin is already a condition to become a Christian, nobody would ask if they could continue to sin as a Christian! Listen to what Martyn Lloyd-Jones, known as The Last of the Preachers, wrote:

It is true that where sin abounded grace has much more abounded; well then, “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound yet further?” The true preaching of the gospel of salvation by grace alone always leads to the possibility of this charge being brought against it. There is no better test as to whether a man is really preaching the New Testament gospel than this, that some people might misunderstand it and mis-interpret it that it really amounts to this: that because you are saved by grace alone, it does not really matter at all WHAT you do, you can go on sinning all you like because it will redound all the more to the glory of grace. That is a very good test of gospel preaching. If my preaching of the gospel does not expose it to that misunderstanding, then it is not the gospel. Let me show you what I mean. If a man preaches justification by works, no one would ever raise the question. If he says, “If you want to go to heaven, you must stop committing sins, live a life filled with good works, and keep this up regularly and constantly until the end, then you will be a Christian and go to heaven when you die.” Obviously, no one will accuse a man who preached like this of saying, “Let us continue in sin that grace may abound.” But every preacher who preached the gospel has been accused of this! They have all been accused of “antinomianism.” I would say to all preachers: If your preaching of salvation has not been misunderstood in that way, then you had better examine your sermons again, and you had better make sure that you really are preaching the salvation that is proclaimed in the New Testament to the ungodly, the sinner, to those who are dead in trespasses and sins, to those who are the enemies of God. There is a kind of dangerous element about the true presentation of the doctrine of salvation.

John : I can tell you this. A person who trusts in Christ will still sin. No doubt about that. But a person who trusts in Christ will gradually start to love God more and more. And gradually, he’ll start to sin less and less. Whom God justifies, He also starts the process of sanctifying. The change may be big, the change may hardly be seen at all and recognized by humans, but there will be a change inside. But we have to be clear that this change in us for the better doesn’t save. It’s Christ that saves.

Peter : But I keep on hearing preachers preaching about , “By their fruits you shall know them”. I’m totally frightened when I hear this kind of preaching, John. It causes me to look into myself to see if I have enough fruits in me. If I don’t, I may not be saved. I heard from a famous preacher that “A Christian is one that loves the Lord with their whole heart, mind and soul”.

John : I believe that’s the problem we have today. In a way, there’s been too much focus inward. We are to look to Christ and outside ourselves to be saved. It’s Christ’s work, not our work. It’s Christ’s life, not our life. We’re not saved by our fruits. Fruits are legitimate results of faith, but to be sure, one needs to carefully speak about this issue. Definitely there will be fruits, but sometimes it may be such that others may not see the fruits. Let’s not be fruit hunters. And as for that last quote, I understand what he means. But one should be careful how he expresses things. Peter, do you think I love the Lord with my whole heart, mind and soul?

Peter : Well, you’re one of the most loving Christians I have ever met. I’m sure you do.

John : Peter, do I have to remind you again of what I did last week when I got angry and swore?

Peter : Well, you’re right. You’ve sinned. But you still do love the Lord with all your heart, mind, soul, I believe.

John : Well, when I sinned, I failed to love the Lord with my heart, mind and soul. Let’s not make sin such a small matter. Whether I sin big or small, whether I sin less often than others or whatever, I’ve still sinned and it proves I failed to love the Lord always with my heart, mind and soul. Thus you can see that a Christian is one that still sins. He doesn’t love the Lord with his heart, mind and soul. He still sins. A Christian will gradually love the Lord more and more than a non Christian, to be sure. But we still sin and still fail the Lord.

Peter : So we go back again to Christ and the cross for assurance and our salvation don’t we?

John : Yes we do. I hope you’ve seen the danger of looking inwards or looking to one’s works.

Peter : What about those who claim to be Christian, claim to have said the Sinner’s Prayer, claim to have walked down the aisle, but yet still live the same life!

John : This is something that I’m concerned too. Firstly, let’s remember again that true Christians will show forth fruit, but let’s not be fruit hunters. Are we going to say that if so and so doesn’t come to Church once a week, or if so and so doesn’t read the bible everyday or pray 10 hours a week, etc., that it means the person isn’t a Christian?

Peter : No, I don’t think that would be good. After all, our trust is in Christ right, not our works.

John : Exactly.

Peter : So does that mean that all who claim who are Christians, we’ll have to give them the benefit of the doubt that they are saved?

John : There is a tension here Peter. I can’t give you any answers. I’m having trouble with this myself. Firstly, let’s recap that Christ is to be received by faith for one to be saved and that one’s assurance is to be in Christ alone, not our works or fruits. Why? Because it’s really hard to look inside and say, “AH HA! I have enough fruits and thus I’m saved” or “You don’t have enough fruits and thus you’re not saved”. Who knows when enough is enough? Thus, let us look to Christ. Yet, on the other hand, we need to realize that the grace of God transforms people. A person who truly trusts in Christ will be transformed. These two are hard to reconcile. If I were to face someone whom I feel isn’t saved, and I were to tell the person, “Pal, you’re not saved. Christ says that if you trust in Him, there will be fruits in your life. Where are those fruits?”, the person to whom I said that to may think that works saves him. He’ll start changing his life. Then he’ll wonder whether that is enough. He’ll wonder if he’s done enough forsaking of sins, surrendering, etc., to be saved. He’ll have a works-orientated mindset. Thus, there is a danger here. We need to be extremely cautious in the way we handle people who seem not to produce fruits. Right now, I’ll say that I offer no strict guidelines. I’m struggling on a method to approach them. What many have said and preached (about self examination) is confusing and will confuse those who hear it. We don’t want to scare people into questioning their salvation because of a lack of works. That would make them think that they have to work to get saved. It’s tricky. But I think the best way to approach such a person is to give them the benefit of the doubt for we cannot judge the heart of another.

Peter : I see, I understand you now. I understand why there needs to be caution in handling these situations.

John : Well, I hope you’ve come to understand more about the gospel.

Peter : I have really learnt a lot. Thanks for your time. You know what, I trust in Christ. I believe He died for me. And I understand that it’s not my forsaking of sins or turning from sins, surrender or obedience that saves me. Thanks so much for explaining this to me John. And I’m going to live a life that will please God. I desire to do that and forsake my sins not because that will save me. Oh, I am ALREADY SAVED! Hallelujah! My focus, my hope, my assurance is on Christ and it’s on the cross. It’s on what Christ did, not what I did or can do. And I will fail in my Christian life, but that doesn’t mean I have to start questioning my salvation. For I am saved by Christ’s death on the cross and nothing else! Hallelujah! This is so liberating!

John : You’ve understood what Christianity is about Peter. It’s not what you can or will do, but what Christ did. To be justified, one needs to accept Christ’s righteousness for oneself. Sanctification is a process of living the Christian life in gratitude to what Christ has already done when He justified you. Your sanctification and growth in holiness will always be imperfect so don’t look to yourself for proof you’re saved, look to Christ’s death for you. I’m glad that you’ve come to realize all this and that you’ve come to trust in Christ and Christ alone totally for your salvation.

I’ve been reading Bill Johnson’s books and I came across this quote:

By nature love does not require anything in return, or it is not love… I have heard teaching on the subject of giving to the poor and needy that emphasizes our stewardship instead of compassion. It basically means that you don’t want to give to someone who will not use what was given properly. My opinion is that there is too much concern about giving something to someone who might misuse what is given. That didn’t stop God. While we do have a responsibility for good management of what God has given us, we are not responsible for what another person does with what we’ve given them. We are responsible to love, and love requires giving. Even if a person misuses the money or gift I gave them, the message of love has been demonstrated. Giving His love away is the goal. (Bill Johnson, Face To Face With God, p. 187-188)

Because the subject of helping the poor has been a big part of my life for some time, I’ve thought a lot about the issues that Bill Johnson wrote about above. Like him, I agree that in focusing on stewardship instead of compassion when addressing the subject of giving, we could miss the essence of what love and grace is about - actions which do not “require anything in return”.

We hear so much about that famous Chinese proverb:

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

While I think there’s certainly truth and wisdom in it, I also think that pushing the implications of the above to the extreme can actually cause one to miss the essence of what grace and love is.

In 2003, while in Colombia (teaching English and learning Spanish), I was faced with the question of whether to continue to give money to a beggar and her family I met on the streets. Was it wise to continuously give them fish, or should I make sure that my money goes to teaching them how to fish? I pondered the above proverb and I reflected upon the meaning of grace. Below are my reflections taken from here:

“So I was confronted with the question of whether my helping Isabel and giving her family money was a good thing. Or perhaps, it was a good thing, but was it a wise thing? Or was it the wisest response in such a situation? In a way, it’s like when one meets a beggar. Should we give money to him/her? Giving to the beggar is just like giving to Isabel (she is after all begging for money) – in both circumstances, we would be giving a fish to the recipient rather than teaching him/her how to fish.

Should I continue giving to Isabel or somehow make sure that my giving to her would result in her working and thus earning her way to self-sufficiency? If I were to continue giving “fishes” to Isabel, rather than making sure she fishes for herself, would I thus be considered a bad steward of my money? Wouldn’t I be of better use if I were to somehow help her to get a job? Wouldn’t it be more right for her too if she were to earn her wages rather than depend on charity to survive?

Although the reasoning behind the “fish” quote is indeed true and wise, I realized that we could indeed take all this too far. What I mean is that we could start thinking that we should not give to the poor if indeed nothing comes out of it – if there is no long-term results to show for our charity. We could start thinking that we need to make them earn their wages and not rely on us for charity. In a way, we could fall into the spirit of the very famous saying (which many people think is taken from the Bible, but is in actual fact not) that “God helps those who help themselves” and thus think it wrong to help those who do not show they want to put in effort to help themselves. While all this in some sense no doubt true, I realized it is dangerous because this spirit could easily go contrary to the spirit of grace. That is, we could forget what grace means. Grace is unconditional giving. It is not conditional at all. By coming up with criteria to be fulfilled before we start giving, our giving ceases to be unconditional. Whether the criteria is imposed on the recipient or merely guides us as to whom we should be giving doesn’t really matter. As long as we don’t give freely – as long as we are being in any way conditional in our giving – we do not understand what grace really is. After all, Jesus didn’t die for the sins of certain people who fulfilled certain criteria, He died for all. When He loved us, he didn’t love only some but all. And when He called us to love others, He didn’t specify who we are to love – except that we are to love all without exception. When we give to others, we are called to give without expecting anything in return. We aren’t asked to give only to those who would use our money wisely. Rather, the only criteria, if any, which needs to be fulfilled before we give, is that those given ought to have needed it.

I came to this conclusion after much struggle within me. Initially, I had told myself that I should be giving for a good purpose. And a good purpose would be if my giving would help Isabel to get a job and thus support herself. There would thus be a long-term effect. In a sense, I would be leaving a little “legacy” of my giving. I would be proud in future to let others know that I gave to help this person who now has a job and is self-supportive. But I realized that this kind of thinking could go very much against the spirit of grace. I wanted to get something out of it – to get the satisfaction of having made a big difference to Isabel’s life. In a sense, my giving was conditional upon the fact that it would lead to something big. But I realized grace doesn’t make such conditions. Jesus loved us all and died for us all even if some would never have accepted His love. Or even if some would have accepted His love but still fail over and over again. That’s grace!

I’m not saying that using our money wisely is not something we ought to do. Obviously we should do that. The parable of the talents encourages us to be responsible for the use of our money. We should use it in such a way that it blesses others and that there are results to show. If we were to go by the parable of the talents alone, then the “fish” quote would indeed be wise and right and ought to be followed. Then we should think about using our money as best as we can and not just give unconditionally, but making sure that results follow. Indeed, the parable of the talents reminds us that we should not be lazy and thus when we give money to people, we need to make sure they are not just lazy and “consume” our gifts but they will invest wisely with it – preferably to learn how to fish, not just to buy fishes! The parable of the talents has a sort of “meritorious” feel to it.

I acknowledge that God does want us to be responsible with the way we use money. We need to put it to good use. But on the other hand, there’s the notion of grace. And grace has absolutely no “meritorious” feel at all! God is a God of grace. His love for us is more of reckless abandon than a calculative sort. The parable of the talents has to be balanced with the understanding of what grace is all about. When we think about grace, we banish all notions of merits or conditions. After all, in the bible there are hints of both capitalism (in the parable of the talents and such) and communism/communalism (Acts 2:44-45, Acts 4:32-35, 2 Corinthians 8-9). And let us not forget that the idea most prominent and preeminent in the bible is that of love and grace.

My point in all of this is that I realized how easily it is for one to forget the idea of grace. And in terms of giving and development, I believe remembering about grace should cause us not to think so much about how our giving produces good long term results, but should instead remind us that even if our giving were to produce nothing in the long term, but were only to be a short term and one-time expression of grace and love, grace would compel us to do it anyway.”

I was baptised as an infant in an Anglican Church in Singapore. My parents were committed Christians and so I went to church faithfully since I was a baby. When I was in my teens - around 15 to 16 - I started to hate going to church (God soon transformed me in a Pentecostal Church). Sunday school wasn’t very interesting. I can’t say I remembered much. But I don’t think the message of Jesus dying for my sins was an emphasis throughout my Sunday School days. I don’t remember the gospel of Jesus Christ being taught then. Rather, I remembered being taught values and character and stuff like that.

I think many Sunday Schools are like that. They teach children how to be good children, using stories from the Bible. And I think that’s one reason why you get so many children from Christian families growing up and feeling the same way as I did. For me, when I was a teenager, church was just a place I went out of routine. Jesus wasn’t real and He wasn’t the focus of what I learned. If He was, it was about Him being a person I should imitate, not about how He loved me and died for my sins. After all, we all want to teach children to be good at home and in school, don’t we? And so we get a lot of Sunday School teachings that focus on being a good Christian. And hey, there are tons of Bible stories that can be used to enforce this point - the point that God wants us to be good and that we should aspire to be good children of God like so many of the heroes in the Bible.

In his book on how to interpret the Old Testament, Gospel and Kingdom, Graeme Goldsworthy talks about how a Sunday School teacher applied the story of David and Goliath:

The fellow dressed up as Goliath had progressively revealed a list of childhood sins by peeling cardboard strips off his breastplate one by one, as the speaker explained the kind of ‘Goliaths’ we all have to meet. Then a strapping young David appeared on cue, and produced his arsenal – a sling labeled ‘faith’ and five stones listed as ‘obedience’, ‘service’, ‘Bible reading’, ‘prayer’, and ‘fellowship’ (p. 8).

The above is probably similar to many typical Sunday School teaching. The above story is applied in such a way that children are exhorted to have more faith and obey, serve, read the Bible, pray and fellowship more. The Bible is used to teach good “lessons” and “principles”. The children are taught how to be good Christians. And they grow up believing that Christianity is all about being good and doing spiritual things and stuff like that.

What’s wrong with the above interpretation and application? Goldsworthy says that

we must not view these recorded events as if they were a mere succession of events from which we draw little moral lessons or example for life (p. 25).

After all,

David is the one who, immediately prior to the Goliath episode (I Samuel 17), is shown to be God’s anointed king . . .So when it comes to his slaying of Goliath it is as the unique anointed one of God that he wins the battle (p. 27-28).

Therefore, the application shouldn’t be that we ought to be more like David so we can defeat our Goliaths. Rather, the story ought to point to Jesus, God’s greater anointed King, who would come and defeat the greater Goliath! The story points to Jesus and such an interpretation encourages awe and faith in its hearers, rather than making them feel defeated that they lack obedience, faith, etc (which we all do). Through the story of David and Goliath, we see the gospel of Jesus Christ and we become thankful and desire to live for Him. The Bible is not primarily about moral lessons and principles. It’s primarily about Jesus Christ - even in the Old Testament.

Children who grow up with Sunday School messages of how we can be better Christians or better people are totally missing the message of the Bible. And parents and Sunday School teachers are totally missing it too if they use the Bible to teach children primarily about character development. If we do that, we will end up with grown ups who are just like the elder brother in the Parable of the Prodigal Son/Father - i.e. 2nd generation Christians who think that Christianity is all about being good Christians and who have totally missed the main message of the Bible which is the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Going back to the article I mentioned in my previous post. I’m so glad it mentioned two books for children I’ve recommended to, and bought for, others before. Parents who are reading this, be sure to get them for your children! They are The Jesus Storybook Bible and The Big Picture Story Bible. The unique thing about these two books isn’t in their pictures or words. It’s in their content. The subtitle of the first book is Every Story whispers His Name. In every story, it’s clearly explained how it relates to Jesus and His finished work. Children reading it will thus understand that the Bible isn’t about helping us to be better Christians, but about Jesus and His death and resurrection.

Because I think it’s so beautiful and true, let me quote the beginning pages of The Jesus Storybook Bible:

Now, some people think the Bible is a book of rules, telling you what you should and shouldn’t do. The Bible certainly does have some rules in it. They show you how life works best. But the Bible isn’t mainly about you and what you should be doing. It’s about God and what he has done.

Other people think the Bible is a book of heroes, showing you people you should copy. The Bible does have some heroes in it, but (as you’ll soon find out) most of the people in the Bible aren’t heroes at all. They make some big mistakes (sometimes on purpose). They get afraid and run away. At times they are downright mean.

No, the Bible isn’t a book of rules, or a book of heroes. The Bible is most of all a Story. It’s an adventure story about a young Hero who comes from a far country to win back his lost treasure. It’s a love story about a brave Prince who leaves his palace, his throne - everything - to rescue the one he loves. It’s like the most wonderful of fairy tales that has come true in real life!

…There are lots of stories in the bible but all the stories are telling one Big Story. The Story of how God loves his children and comes to rescue them.

It takes the whole Bible to tell this Story. And at the center of the Story, there is a baby. Every Story in the Bible whispers his name. He is like the missing piece in a puzzle - the piece that makes all the other pieces fit together; and suddenly you can see a beautiful picture.

I’ll finish with excerpts from the book on how the stories of the tower of Babel (Gen. 11), of Abraham and Isaac (Gen. 22) and of Joseph and his brothers (Gen. 37-46) end. Notice how every story whispers Jesus’ name:

You see, God knew, however high they reached, however hard they tried, people could never get back to heaven by themselves. People didn’t need a staircase; they needed a Rescuer. Because the way back to heaven wasn’t a staircase; it was a Person.

People could never reach up to Heaven, so Heaven would have to come down to them.

And, one day, it would.

Many years later, another Son would climb another hill, carrying wood on his back. Like Isaac, he would trust his Father and do what his Father asked. He wouldn’t struggle or run away.

Who was he? God’s Son, his only Son - the Son he loved.

The Lamb of God.

One day, God would send another Prince, a young Prince whose heart would break. Like Joseph, he would leave his home and his Father. His brothers would hate him and want him dead. He would be sold for pieces of silver. He would be punished even though he had done nothing wrong.

But God would use everything that happened to this young Prince - even the bad things - to do something good: to forgive the sins of the whole world.

Isn’t it so beautiful when we read all the stories in the Old Testament as primarily pointing to the gospel of Jesus Christ? When we see these stories not primarily as instructions on what to do and what not to do in order to please God and be good Christians, but primarily as stories pointing to the Big Love Story of the Father sending His one and only Son to rescue us from us sins, our hearts cannot but be encouraged and moved. And I think if more Sunday Schools were to teach the Bible like this, more children would be established in the love of God in Christ and grow up understanding what Christianity is truly all about.

PS: Another good children’s book written from a redemptive-historical perspective (i.e. one that focuses on God’s redemption plan in Jesus Christ) like the above two mentioned books is Mighty Acts of God: A Family Bible Story Book.

Christianity Today has an excellent article by Collin Hansen on Christ-centered sermons and concerns about them. It touches on so many things I’ve learned over the last 15 years or so (boy, do I sound old!) regarding grace and the law/gospel distinction, etc. As I read it, I said to myself, “This is what New Creation is about”. By “this”, I mean the fact that New Creation Church stands apart from many churches in that their preaching is thoroughly and unashamedly Christ-centered.

To me, New Creation is all about Christ-centeredness. Yes, there are other things unique about New Creation like its view of the Holy Communion or its view of confession of sins. Its belief that the 10 Commandments are no longer for the New Covenant Christian is quite unique too (though as I will argue in a future post, many Christians believe in it). But in my opinion, if one is to understand what attracts so many people to New Creation (besides a very charismatic preacher), it is the fact that the messages are Christ-centered as defined in the article. I say “as defined in the article” because every pastor will claim to be Christ-centered, but by “Christ-centered” we’re not just talking about a sermon that mentions Christ in it. Rather, we’re talking about a way of biblical interpretation, preaching and understanding Christianity which sees the indicative of the gospel of what Christ has done for us as more important and dominant than the imperative of what we are to do for Christ. Christ-centered sermons tend to focus on what is DONE by Christ for us (i.e. the gospel of Jesus Christ’s death), rather than what we ought to DO for Him (moralizing).

For critics of New Creation, let it be known that this kind of emphasis on Christ and the gospel doesn’t just occur in New Creation! Read the Christianity Today article and its all there. Names like Tim Keller (who I’ve mentioned a few times on this blog), Ed Clowney, Graeme Goldsworthy, Bryan Chapell - these are all pretty well-known Reformed theologians/pastors who advocate preaching in a Christ-centered way very similar to what Pastor Prince does in New Creation. If you go to most churches and then go to New Creation and then recognize that New Creation’s message is very different from most other churches and you try to figure out why this is so, read Clowney’s Preaching Christ in All of Scripture, Goldsworthy’s Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture and Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics and Chapell’s Christ-Centered Preaching. Also check out Dennis E. Johnson’s Him We Proclaim: Preaching Christ from All the Scriptures and Sidney Greidanus’s Preaching Christ from the Old Testament. (I understood what all the above people are saying through Michael Horton’s writings, which helped me understand grace years before I knew of Joseph Prince or New Creation Church).  These books are all by Reformed Christians who more or less believe in what is also known as Redemptive-Historical preaching. A Redemptive-Historical, or Biblical Theological, approach to interpreting and preaching the Bible is a unique way of viewing the Bible where Christ is always the center. Each passage of Scriptures must be seen from where it is in the history of redemption. We can’t just pick any scripture and think it’s directly applicable to us - especially if it’s from the Old Testament / Old Covenant. Colin Hansen writes:

Chapell identifies three common problems with sermon application: closing charges to “be like,” “be good,” and “be disciplined.” While this problem pops up in sermons about Jesus, Old Testament character stories are also ripe for abuse. Clowney cites perhaps the most famous example of sub-Christian moralizing from the Old Testament: “We dare not preach David’s encounter with Goliath as an example of bravery to be emulated in our conflicts with the ‘giants’ that assault us. Such an approach trivializes the Old Testament revelation.” Such a sermon trivializes the Old Testament because it does not understand David as a “type” pointing toward the brave Son of God who endured the Cross and conquered the giant of sin and death in his Resurrection.

Yes, Christ is there even in the Old Testament through types and shadows and we shouldn’t miss it. Many preachers who only see moralistic exhortations and not Jesus in the Old Testament don’t preach much of the Old Testament, but the preacher who learns how to see Christ in the Old Testament loves to preach from there (see Clowney’s The Unfolding Mystery: Discovering Christ in the Old Testament and Goldsworthy’s Gospel and Kingdom). And that’s why Pastor Prince loves to preach from the Old Testament, for he sees Christ everywhere in the OT. While many preachers may take the story of God asking Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac and apply it to Christians by saying they need to sacrifice their Isaacs (i.e. give up things in your life precious to you so as to please God and put Him first), everyone in New Creation has been moved by Pastor Prince using that passage to impress upon us how God Himself sacrificed his only Son Jesus Christ for us. That’s how every Scripture points to Christ. The message for the congregation is thus not “give up this for God” or “be better” or “do more” for God, but rather “God is so loving and gracious to you that He sacrificed His one and only Son Jesus for you”. It is not hard to see which message produces guilt and shame and which supports faith and encourages us in our walk with God. As Chapell was quoted in the article:

Messages that strike at the heart of faith rather than support it often have an identifying theme. They exhort believers to ‘be’ something in order to be loved by God. Whether this equation is stated or implied, inadvertent or intentional, overt or subtle, the result is the same: an undermining of biblical faith. Such damage is usually inflicted by preachers striving to be biblical and unaware of the harm they are causing because they see their ideas supported in the narrow slice of Scripture they are expounding. They can point to the five points for a better marriage in the text.

The message of the whole of the Bible isn’t about principles for how we can be better Christians or live happier lives. Sermons shouldn’t be like a motivational talk but they will be if we just preach from that “narrow slice of Scripture” and try to apply them to Christians without understanding the whole of the Bible and how every part points to Christ and His finished work.

Pastor Prince probably hasn’t heard of any of the above authors. That doesn’t matter. But to me he’s more or less putting into practice the Christ-centered preaching that the above authors advocate. I’m sure these authors will not agree with a lot of what Pastor Prince believes and preaches. But I’m very sure that they will love his Christ-centered sermons and recognize his approach to preaching Christ in all of Scripture as very similar to theirs. I believe too that this unique Christ-centered approach to preaching is the reason why many Christians who come to New Creation from other churches say that they have come to love Christ more and see more of His beauty than ever before. When we start to see from the story of Abraham sacrificing his one and only son Isaac not a despot demanding He be first in our lives but a loving Father sacrificing his one and only Son for us, we start to see more clearly the grace and love of our Father and start to fall in love with Jesus more and more.

Those who know a bit about me through this blog know that I came from the Reformed/Calvinistic Christian tradition. It’s a wonderful Christian tradition with a rich theological heritage. I will not say I’m Reformed anymore as I’m more eclectic in my theological views now, but I still follow a lot of what’s going on in that tradition as there is so much I can learn from there. This post is going to touch on a big debate going on in the Reformed circles now which I think parallels to a certain extent the big debate surrounding New Creation’s message on grace.

The understanding I have of grace and the law and gospel first came to me when I read about it from Michael Horton and his gang of friends at White Horse Inn about 10 years ago. Through my many blog posts on grace and New Creation Church, I’ve actually referred back to Reformed authors in defense of what Pastor Joseph Prince teaches on grace. Michael Horton’s passion for the gospel has a lot of similarities with that of Joseph Prince. I know putting the two names together would probably horrify many people, but take away Pastor Prince’s charismatic views on healing, prosperity and blessings and look at things a bit more objectively and you’ll recognize a lot of similarities there in their messages of the gospel of grace. Yes, there are huge differences in other areas, but let me quote from a review of Michael Horton’s recent book Christless Christianity in which those appreciative of New Creation’s grace message would say a hearty “Amen!”:

The focus of the message in the contemporary church now tends to be more about us and our activity versus God and His work accomplished in Jesus Christ… The new legalism, Horton argues, consists of sermons that focus in on principles, rules, steps, laws, codes and guidelines as the central application, that if followed will reap psychological rewards. Preaching of this kind, he calls ‘moralistic therapeutic deism’. But Horton does not merely critique, he also points to Christ as the solution. While this may outwardly seem simplistic, Christianity, Horton says, is news about what Christ has done for us (a divine rescue) not what we do for Him (a self-salvation project or steps to victory). In other words, the gospel is first about divine accomplishment, not human attainment (or principles for living). What we do as Christians is always as a response to the finished work Christ has already accomplished for us. If it is not preached this way in every sermon then Christianity cannot be sharply differentiated from any other religion ascending to God, rather than a message showing our utter helplessness and the need to God to descend to rescue us. This, Horton emphasizes is the key, not only to salvation but to Christian sanctification as well.

…Horton’s tonic for the crisis is to focus on what God does for us rather than what we do for God. “Gifts do not go up to God but come down from the God who does not need anything that would obligate a return (Acts 17:24-35; Rom 11:35-36).” The Son of God did not come to be served, but comes to serve us – “we are the ones who need to be bathed, clothed and fed, not God.”

The current debate in Reformed circles is about Horton’s Christless Christianity book and I guess his views in general. I haven’t read that book and I don’t exactly plan to because I’ve read tons of Horton’s writings and he’s probably been the Christian author who has influenced my thinking the most. So I think I know what to expect from his book. I’m sure I would agree mostly with the book. Not everything, but I think I would certainly agree wholeheartedly with the general thrust of the book which is that preaching nowadays tends to be more about what we are to do for God, rather than what Christ has done for us - and that this should be reversed as the gospel needs to be central. Wonderful stuff. I like it and so would every New Creation member. Not only that, but great reviews from most of the evangelical Christian world.

And so in steps John Frame, who writes a scathing critique of Horton’s book, which sets the Reformed blogsphere on fire - for example, see responses to Frame’s review here, here and here. The interesting thing is that Frame is a pretty heavyweight Reformed theologian himself, and yet chose to write a very critical review. But perhaps it’s unsurprisingly as there’s a lot of history in all of this (i.e. the differences in viewpoints going back years), so I’ve read.

I haven’t read much from Frame, but I do like the stuff I’ve read. He’s the kind of guy who writes about a lot of things and makes you reflect. You may not agree with him, but he makes you think about things in a different way. He’s kind of a non-conformist too, not afraid to differ from what others say and stand up for what he believes in, which is another plus point in my eyes. I read his wonderful book Contemporary Christian Worship and loved it. In it he defends the contemporary / charismatic style of worship. That’s no big deal in and of itself but you must remember he comes from a tradition (Reformed) that’s generally quite anti anything that’s charismatic. The tradition is full of churches whose worship service is anything but contemporary in style. And the tradition has lots against contemporary / charismatic worship. And so he writes a book defending contemporary christian worship! What audacity! And in my opinion it was a great book and very balanced. Of course the majority in the Reformed tradition would differ from me!

So we have two authors here that I admire greatly, but for different reasons. Michael Horton and gang have taught me so much about the gospel, its centrality and the law/gospel distinction. His writings have shaped how I view God and the Bible. His writings have made me appreciate a church like New Creation that has got its emphasis purely on the gospel of Jesus Christ. John Frame, on the other hand, challenges me to see things from different perspectives and to keep things in balance and make sure truths are not out of proportion or carried out to the extreme or at the expense of other truths. As regards to where Frame stands regarding the gospel and law/gospel distinction, I’m on Horton’s side. Yet, I think there’s much that we can learn from Frame too.

Because most of my blog readers are not Reformed and probably couldn’t be bothered with an internal debate involving mainly Reformed Christians, the rest of this post (and the next) will be me basically trying to relate this controversy to the controversy surrounding New Creation and what we can learn through it. So here are some points:

1) The importance of the centrality of the gospel: One thing I’ve learned from Horton is that the gospel of Jesus Christ ought to be central in everything. By the gospel of Jesus Christ, I mean the fact that God in Christ died for our sins. The gospel is about what God did in Christ, not what we do for God. It’s about God giving to us, not about us giving to God. And this message ought to be central in the church and in the preaching.

Most churches talk more about what we ought to do for God and other people. That’s not wrong, but that just should not be central to the preaching we constantly hear and our faith. The reason many churches preach a lot about what we ought to do and little on what Christ has done for us is because many preachers think that the gospel message is just for unbelievers and believers have “graduated” from such a message and don’t need to constantly hear it proclaimed. This kind of attitude to the gospel message is what many others have called assuming the gospel. Many assume that Christians know the gospel message and understand it. The problem is not that that preachers today deny the gospel. It’s just that they don’t think it’s important enough to place it central.

Horton writes:

There need not be explicit abandonment of any key Christian teaching, just a set of subtle distortions and not-so-subtle distractions. Even good things can cause us to look away from Christ and to take the gospel for granted as something we needed for conversion but which now can be safely assumed and put in the background. Center stage, however, is someone or something else. (p. 20)

So the gospel message of Christ’s death and resurrection needs to be central. The message of what God has done for us on the cross ought to be more important and central in the church than what we ought to do for God. This has been Horton’s message for many years and all who attend New Creation know that this is precisely what New Creation is all about. The most important message of the Bible according to Paul is the gospel of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 15:3-4; Gal. 6:14). And it is this message that is for both the non-Christian and even the Christian as it is understanding the goodness of God in the gospel of Jesus Christ that transforms us and teaches us to deny ungodliness (Rom. 2:4; Titus 2:12).

2) Using extreme language unnecessarily: Let’s go to Frame’s review. In the beginning he comments on Horton’s use of extreme language like “Christless” and “alternative gospel”. Frame reminds us, based on Galatians 1:8-9, that

It is time we learned that when we criticize someone for preaching “another gospel” we are doing nothing less than cursing him, damning him to Hell.

Frame’s concern is that we don’t use such extreme terms flippantly and that it doesn’t help when we use extreme labels when describing other Christians or sections of Christianity. Yes, sometimes we over-exaggerate to make a point. However, we also have to be sensitive to the implications of using such terms. By saying this preacher or that preacher is preaching another gospel is not something we should be saying lightly at all as we’re really saying that they are cursed.

I’m all for Horton’s call to place more emphasis on the gospel. However, we need to be careful and not describe those who don’t emphasize the gospel as much as we think they should as adopting or as being close to adopting a Christless Christianity or an alternative gospel. As Frame wrote,

We ought to discuss these matters in an atmosphere of brotherhood, charity, and civility. Certainly we should hold back on extreme language like “Christless” and “alternative gospel.”

I love New Creation’s emphasis on the gospel of Jesus Christ. I’ve been to many churches and have sat under years and years of preaching in Singaporean churches and have never come across a church that emphasizes the gospel of Jesus Christ like New Creation. I wish all churches in Singapore would grasp the significance of the centrality of the gospel, just as Michael Horton and Joseph Prince have.

But let me say this. I hear a lot of preaching that touches on Galatians 1:8-9 (and other passages like that) that make it sound as if other churches other than New Creation (especially those which criticize New Creation) are preaching another gospel. The quote is about starting by grace but continuing by works. To Paul, this is about preaching another gospel. To Paul, people who promote such a gospel are cursed.

My point here, like Frame’s, is that we have to be careful with our words. I think that in an important sense, New Creation preaches the gospel of Jesus Christ more faithfully than perhaps any other Church in Singapore. New Creation is very clear on the gospel. Clarity is important especially as it relates to the gospel message. Many other churches tend to be less clear on the gospel, perhaps even confusing. But I would not even imply or hint that those who disagree with the way New Creation preaches the gospel are preaching another gospel. To do so is really to imply that all other churches or Christians are damned to hell.

Caution is also in order when we talk about the Ten Commandments. I’m solidly behind New Creation in their view that the Ten Commandments are not for Christians today. Other Christians from different Christian traditions believe the same thing. But there are many churches who still believe that the Ten Commandments are for today. We may disagree with that. But we have to recognize that these Christians are NOT saying that we are saved by obeying the Ten Commandments. We thus have to be careful with our criticism and refrain from saying that those who believe that the Ten Commandments are for today are preaching another gospel or preaching that they believe we have to obey the Ten Commandments to be saved, etc. Similarly, those who disagree with New Creation and other Christians who believe the Ten Commandments are not for Christians today should refrain from accusing these Christians of being antinomian or believing that we can sin all we want, etc.

Let me be clear. Scripture does use extreme words to describe those who advocate that we’re saved by works or by obeying the Ten Commandments. I’m not saying we should refrain from using such extreme language so we can all get along. No. By all means, use such extreme language if there are Christians and pastors who are advocating such deception. But as far as I know, no church or pastor does that. Some may preach a confusing message but that doesn’t warrant our extreme use of language to describe them or their teaching. I know what many New Creation members mean when they testify of how their view of Christianity was generally a legalistic one before they encountered the grace and freedom in New Creation. Their view of God was less than biblical because of what their pastors preached previously. I understand this because I’ve been in many such churches. A lot of preaching in many churches is confusing and gives the impression that we have to do good to please God. Furthermore, I know a lot of people do get the impression because of such teaching that God is angry with them and perhaps will not even save them if they do not lead good or godly lives. I’m all against such teachings. But talk to the pastor or leader about the confusing message and while his/her preaching wasn’t so consistent or clear, he/she will tell you that he believes we’re saved by faith alone through grace alone. Such preachers could learn a lot from New Creation about being clear about the message of the gospel and grace, but I would certainly not go so far as to say that they are preaching another gospel and are cursed.

This works both ways of course. Just as I’d like to see less preaching from New Creation that sets up an “us” vs “them” mentality implying that other Christians and churches (those not part of the “grace revolution”) are preaching another gospel, I’d like to see less preaching from other Churches which paints churches like New Creation as though they are antinomian or preach that Christians can sin all they want. Both sides need to be careful not to create straw man arguments and tear them down using the extreme language of Scripture.

To be continued in Part 2…

I think there’s a lot of miscommunication going on when people criticize New Creation Church’s teachings on law and grace - and also when the opposite occurs (i.e. when New Creation members or leaders criticize those who disagree with them). In my opinion, a lot of times both sides are just talking past one another. What I mean is that there is more common ground between the two sides (and I’m talking about matters relating to law and grace) than both sides would readily admit. I’m not saying there are no differences. There clearly are. But I think if cool heads prevailed, we’d be able to learn more from one another.

While I am from New Creation, I don’t agree with everything Pastor Prince says. I may disagree with a lot of things but I’m there because I agree that the overall emphasis of preaching and the Christian life ought to be on God’s love and grace for us, rather than on what we ought to do for Him. I believe that the indicatives of Scripture are much more important than the imperatives of Scripture. I also believe that if one of the church’s goals is to see Christians become more Christlike, the route to that is not to preach more law but to preach more grace. But I also do think some interpretations of Scripture in New Creation seem to be more forced upon the text to fit into their theological lenses of filtering everything through the lens of grace.

I love City Harvest Church (CHC) and I’ve attended there a bit since one of my best friends comes from the church. I respect the church greatly and also respect Pastor Kong Hee. It’s a really excellent church and I have to say that many times I feel more at home with the people there than at New Creation. The community there is much stronger and I love being in a strong community. I think both churches have their strengths and also their weaknesses. I’m a firm believer that God didn’t deposit truth only in one church or one tradition. The danger is for any Christian (pastor or otherwise, New Creation or City Harvest, etc.) to think he/she has got it all correct unlike other Christians. I think when we all meet Jesus, we’ll see how wrong we’ve all been in our thinking and theology - and especially in the way we treat other Christians who differ from us in doctrine. It’ll be a wonderful moment but probably also a difficult one for many of us who have been loyal and faithful to one leader or church or system of doctrine/teaching while looking down on others.

In my opinion, God has truly blessed New Creation with great revelation regarding grace, as He has blessed City Harvest with great revelation regarding engaging culture, just as He has blessed Bethel Church (Redding, California) with great revelation regarding how the normal Christian life ought to be filled with signs and wonders. All three churches have so much to teach the Christian world in the respective areas they are strong in and all of them are having an enormous impact in the Christian world.

Having said all this, I’m not a person who thinks that we should all just get along together and ignore theological differences and think everyone is right. I do believe there should be more unity and love between different Christians, but that doesn’t mean theology is unimportant. I love good theology and I love to think through theology because there’s always practical implications of theology on the Christian life. I believe in having convictions and even strong convictions on certain doctrines, but that shouldn’t affect how we treat Christians who differ from us. Our differences regarding the relatively non-essential doctrines ought not to blind us to the unity we have around the relatively essential doctrines. Doctrines like grace and signs and wonders are hugely important for me and my Christian life. However, in comparison to doctrines like justification by faith alone and the deity of Christ, they are relatively non-essential. (Arguably, our view on grace can affect our view of justification, but I won’t get into that here). While I’d strongly disagree with Christians whom I think are legalistic or who are anti-charismatic, I will never deny them the fact that they are my brothers- or sisters-in-Christ and we’re going to worship Jesus one day side-by-side.

When I talk about essential and non-essential doctrines, I’m thinking about the quote by St. Augustine which goes:

In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity.

This means that Christians should unite around the most important (i.e. essential) doctrines. For less important ones (i.e. non-essentials), we should give other Christians the freedom and liberty to disagree with us. And of course, we should be loving always. So for essential doctrines, we ought not to allow compromise, but should be one (i.e. think similarly) on these doctrines. If a church preaches that Jesus is not God, we ought to speak out strongly against that. For non-essential doctrines, we can have strong convictions about them, but we really shouldn’t treat those who differ from us as if they are not Christians or lesser Christians. Our attitude should be one of allowing them to disagree with us and yet still treating them as God’s beloved children.

Of course people will disagree with me when I say doctrines like grace (in the sense that New Creation views it) or signs and wonders are non-essential. For many people, their pet doctrine cannot but be an essential doctrine worth dying for. I can’t accept that simply because I think God doesn’t accept that. God is bigger that that. It’s this dogmatic spirit that makes the fundamentalist Christians demonize every Christian who differs from them even in one iota. If every Christian acts in such a way, there will not be any visible unity whatsoever.

I may have angered some New Creation Christians above when I said that grace is not an essential doctrine. When I say that, I mean grace in the way New Creation believes it. Not many Christians believe it the same way as them, but I still believe other Christians and churches do believe in justification by faith alone. I think New Creation’s beliefs on grace are much more biblical than the beliefs of those that criticize New Creation. But I’m not about to be overly critical of other Churches and Christians who differ from New Creation to the extent that I divide the body of Christ. These churches and Christians may preach a confusing message of grace, but I still believe the Christians there are saved and that God blesses the truth in the confusion and blesses the Christians in spite of the confusing message preached. I’ve written many posts in this blog defending New Creation in a sense simply because I think attacks have been unjust. But I know that God is bigger than New Creation and the “grace churches”. And just as much as I think many so called “grace churches” can teach the body of Christ a lot about grace, a lot of other churches who are strong in other areas have much to teach these so called “grace churches”. We all need each other.

A reader (let’s call him Jack) of this blog recently emailed me, asking me for my thoughts on his spiritual situation because he’s read/listened to a preacher that I’ve quoted on this blog (Paul Washer) and has also listened to a few of Pastor Prince’s sermons - both of whom preach pretty contradictory messages in one sense. I asked for his permission to put an edited form of his email on my blog for others to respond to his struggles, as I think some readers will have some helpful things to say . He was fine with this. So below is his email (edited) followed by an introductory response by me. In subsequent posts, I’ll write more on this topic. For now, I welcome the responses of other Christians from all tribes of Christianity!

…I recall reading on your blog that you like the way Paul Washer preached about the gospel, though you didn’t agree with some of the things (too legalistic if I remember correctly?). I’ve been reading/watching his sermons/teachings, including his Ten Indictments Against the Modern Church in America and his shocking youth message. I have to admit that I’m really shocked/afraid after reading his teachings. I have not had time to find opposing teachings, but I have listened to one or two sermons from Joseph Prince.

Just to give you some background:I’ve been a “Christian” for about 5 years - I’m in my late teens now. I’ve attended 3 different churches (Anglican, Pentecostal and now an Independent church). My spiritual life has never been really good and sadly ,although there have been bouts of improvement in my struggles with anger/vulgarities/insecurity, my struggle with lust has led me down a road to where I’m now nearing a point, I believe, of no return. =/ I’ve doubted my salvation many times, wondering if I’m one of seeds that has no root or will fall away due to the worries of life/wealth (Matthew 13:18-23). This is especially so because every time I make a re-commitment/dedication to start living my life for Christ, I either give up quickly or forget after a few days… eventually going back to square one or worse, regressing.

I would really appreciate it if you could share your opinion on Paul Washer’s teachings. I have nothing to go by, as his teachings seem biblically sound and logically valid. However, if ALL are true, it would terrible news for me because it would mean all these years (5yrs), I have not grown, or worse, not been saved at all.

The post where Jack encountered my quote of Paul Washer is here, written in 2006. This was before I started regularly attending New Creation, though I still held to pretty much the same view of grace then as I do now. As I’ve mentioned many times on this blog, I learned about grace over 10 years ago before I even heard of New Creation Church.

It’s interesting he mentioned that Paul Washer post because I remember that post very clearly as I’ve been wanting to revisit his teachings again in a future blog post. I wanted to do another post on Washer’s teachings because while I absolutely love his passion for missions, I also profoundly disagree with his view on salvation and assurance of salvation.

I agree 100% when Paul Washer said:

I don’t wish the same things your parents want for you. They want for you security and insurance and nice homes. They want for you cars and respect. I want for you the same thing I want for my son. That one day he takes a banner…the banner of Jesus Christ. And he places it on a hill…where noone has ever placed the banner before. And he cries out, “Jesus Christ is Lord!” Even if it costs my son his life.

This was taken from Paul Washer’s famous message here. But I also wrote, as Jack correctly noted, that other stuff in his sermon was too legalistic for my liking.

I’ve listened to a bit of Paul Washer’s stuff and while I am inspired by his passion for missions and agree with his call to go and really reach the lost even if it means great sacrifice and even his view that Christians today (especially in the Western world) are too comfortable and not really living as we should, I’m less fond of his views when he questions whether such Christians are saved.

I’m all for calling Christians to live sacrificially for Jesus and His Kingdom. I’m all for missions. I’m all for (honestly) mentioning that we’ve failed and there is so much more we can do. I’m 100% with him in being against the typical Western comfortable middle-class lifestyle in the light of the fact that there are billions lost out there. We middle-class Christians are big-time hypocrites in many ways. We proclaim our first love is Jesus, but most of us are focused on ourselves and our life. So in all honesty, the church has failed greatly in many ways.

But, I will not go so far as to say that Christians who struggle with sin and do not live “godly” lives should question their salvation. To me, that crosses the line into legalism and works-righteousness.

You see, I’m really enthusiastic about missions and all that. But I’m not about to scare Christians into thinking that if they’re not doing enough for God, or do not show enough evidence that they are saved, they may not be saved at all! That’s my great disagreement with Paul Washer, which I’ll mention more in my subsequent posts.

I know where Paul Washer comes from because for over 5 years of my life I was really into the Reformed/Calvinistic theological tradition. Many young Reformed/Calvinistic Christians nowadays admire Washer’s sermons greatly because he’s extremely passionate about what he sees as compromised Western Christianity. And he’s preached a lot of on this area - e.g. his Biblical Assurance series and Examine Yourself sermon that can be found here. The issue of grace and legalism was one of my two pet topics for those 5 years plus (the other being bringing together the best of the Reformed and Charismatic worlds) and I read and discussed a lot about this issue with many Reformed Christians. So I think I know a bit of where he’s coming from and the theological issues involved.

The main thing I want to address in Jack’s post is the issue of “assurance of salvation”. To me, this is an extremely important topic and one that gets to the core of what the gospel is all about. Christians believe different things about how one can be assured of their salvation. Most (not all) Reformed/Calvinistic Christians believe that we ought to look at our lives to see if we have evidence that we’re saved. They believe that we should not naively think that just because we believe in Jesus, we’re saved. Instead, we need to also look at our lives to confirm we’re saved. Such Christians believe that too many Christians have the false assurance that they’re saved when they actually are not saved so they preach about assurance of salvation and tell Christians that if they are not living godly lives then they should not have any assurance that they are saved. And they think preaching like this would wake Christians up! This is what Paul Washer does a lot in his sermons. And other preachers too (from the Reformed tradition mainly but also from other traditions).

Such preachers sincerely believe that the reason why Christianity is in such a bad state is because many Christians aren’t actually saved. So they preach sermons that make their hearers question whether they are saved. They want Christians to examine themselves and to be more introspective - i.e. to look inside themselves to see if they have the qualities that are meant to be in the hearts of every true Christian. And they are happy when Christians do look inside themselves and feel that they are not saved because they don’t see any evidence. They are not sadistic people who delight in seeing people doubt their salvation. They are sincere preachers who believe that “Christians” will start to wake up if they start to examine themselves and find they are not saved. And the result is these “Christians” would become “true” Christians and live godlier lives. And I think they’ve been quite successful in getting Christians to question their salvation. That’s why Jack wrote above, “I’ve doubted my salvation many times.”

I disagree with Paul Washer’s teachings in this area of teaching though I know many, if not most, evangelical preachers would agree with him. Maybe not as hard, forceful or direct as Paul Washer, but definitely they would preach something similar. I’ve heard it many times in many churches. It’s not that these churches or preachers don’t believe in justification by faith alone. It’s not that they believe we have to earn our salvation. On the contrary, they believe in justification by faith alone and believe we can’t earn our salvation, yet preach in such a way that is confusing and legalistic. Perhaps Michael Eaton, a Reformed theologian and pastor, said it best in his scholarly book No Condemnation - A New Theology of Assurance, a revision of his doctoral thesis, when describing his own experience:

These evangelical commentators seemed to offer freedom with one hand, only to take it back with the other. Having liberated the believer with wonderful expositions of grace, they then took everything back again with dark mutterings about temporary faith and works confirming salvation and talk about self-examination. (p. 7)

It is because such confusing and legalistic teachings pervade many evangelical churches that many people have found New Creation Church such a breath of fresh air. I’m sure some from there can share their thoughts with Jack here. In my subsequent posts, I’ll share a bit more about why many Christian leaders and theologians disagree with such legalistic messages that cause people to doubt their own salvation.