stillhaventfound.org

The Christian gospel is that I am so flawed that Jesus had to die for me, yet I am so loved and valued that Jesus was glad to die for me. This leads to deep humility and deep confidence at the same time. It undermines both swaggering and sniveling. I cannot feel superior to anyone, and yet I have nothing to prove to anyone. I do not think more of myself nor less of myself. Instead, I think of myself less. (Timothy Keller, The Reason For God, p. 181.)

I like this quote a lot because I think it summarizes well how we ought to think of man in the light of sin and the gospel. Some Christians look at the gospel and emphasize how flawed man is. Others look at the gospel and see in it how loved man is. I tried to share a bit of my thoughts on this issue here (Man-centered or God-centered? Part One & Two).

I like what Tim Keller said about not thinking “more of myself nor less of myself”. Rather, we should just think of ourselves less! That is, the question isn’t whether we ought to have a “low” or “high” view of ourselves. Rather, we really shouldn’t be thinking of ourselves at all so much! We should be thinking of Christ instead!

The above sounds pretty good. I started this blog post agreeing with Keller’s statement. But as I started to write, some other thoughts came into my mind. And so I’d like to provide a bit of challenge to the above.

Let me start by saying that because we’re Christians, we are new creations. We’re no longer the same as before but have been fundamentally changed in the inside of us. While it’s good to think of God and Christ more, maybe it’s not all that wrong to think of ourselves (that is, if we’re Christians) because the way we ought to think of ourselves as Christians isn’t the same as before. That is, we see ourselves as “in Christ”. Our identity now is intrinsically linked with Christ’s identity. We take our identity after his.

Therefore, everytime we think of ourselves, we shouldn’t really be thinking of ourselves alone, but who we are because of Christ and who we are in Him. Given the truth that we’re in Christ now, there’s no longer any need to dichotomize between focusing on man and focusing on Christ. In a sense, the more we talk and focus on this new creation - if we do so properly and realize that this new creation is new because of Christ and because he/she is in Christ -, the more we’re actually focusing on Christ too because this new creation cannot be understood apart from Christ.

…most of the Bible’s practical instructions are in the second half of Paul’s epistles. The reason is because the second half of each epistle is the applicational portion of Paul’s teaching. If you were only concerned about the [issue of] family, then you would probably address only those passages.

Yet we cannot approach the Christian life merely by looking at the practical applications. The first half of Paul’s epistles form for us a necessary foundation - they establish us in Christ. Not until we establish ourselves in the truths about being complete in Christ can we begin to apply what we find in the second half of Paul’s epistles. People who try to behave as children of God will produce little fruit when they have no understanding of who they are in Christ or how to live by the Spirit’s power.

…I have seen marital conflicts resolved and stay resolved when couples focus first on who they are in Christ, and then deal with their other problems. I’ve never seen marriage resolution work when that order is turned around. People today are spending too much time trying to change behavior, and not enough time trying to change what they believe about God and themselves.

(Neil Anderson, God’s Power At Work In You, p. 209)

I’ve been reading a bit of Neil Anderson’s stuff recently. Really powerful stuff. I first encountered his book The Bondage Breaker about 5 to 10 years ago. I don’t think I read it then. Or at least it didn’t leave much of an impression on me.

Recently, through trying to help a friend through some spiritual bondages, I’ve been reading Anderson’s books. Anderson’s ministry is all about helping people find freedom in Christ. And the main way to finding freedom is through knowing one’s identity in Christ.

I’ve always known the importance of knowing one’s identity in Christ and how that is so fundamental in a Christian’s spiritual walk with God. But Anderson’s writings have reinforced this in my mind. Knowing one’s identity in Christ has a lot to do with knowing the benefits of the finished work of Christ. It’s about knowing who the Christian is as a result of what Christ did for him/her.

Another thing that’s been reinforced in my mind as I read Anderson is that the devil’s main weapon is his lies. He’ll do all he can to influence our thinking. He’ll make us think that our heavenly Father isn’t a loving father because of our past experiences. He’ll deceive us into thinking that we’re merely forgiven sinners, and not new creations with authority and power. Basically, a lot of what he does has to do with preventing Christians from understanding who they are in Christ simply because knowing one’s identity in Christ is so powerful.

These are of course things that New Creation teaches. New Creation’s emphasis is on grace - i.e. what God has done for us in Christ - and also who we are and what we have because of Christ’s finished work. Many other churches emphasize a lot on what we ought to do for God, that is, the practical applications portion of the Bible.

I don’t think it’s wrong to preach the practical applications portions of the Bible. In fact, it’s definitely wrong if a church doesn’t preach them at all (which one day I’ll argue New Creation could probably be accused of). However, it’s probably just as wrong, if not more so, to ignore or place so little emphasis on the foundational “who we are in Christ” passages because we think that Christians already know it all. The truth is that most of us don’t know the full implications of what it means for us to be “in Christ”. And I think that’s one reason why we see so little victory and power in the Church.

I love both New Creation Church and City Harvest Church. Both are actually very different churches. They both have very different ministries. New Creation’s focus is on the gospel of grace. City Harvest’s focus is on evangelism and missions. I think New Creation has some of the best preaching/teaching you can find anywhere in Singapore. City Harvest’s passion for reaching out is second to none in Singapore. I prefer New Creation’s focus on grace and God’s love for us - as opposed to City Harvest’s focus on loving God and man and living out the Christian life (though I think that neither portray a biblical balance). I love City Harvest’s strong cell community and think it’s closer to how a Christian community should be like.

In the past month, I’ve been spending some time with a City Harvest cell for various reasons. So I’ve been attending some cell and church meetings, as well as interacting with various cell members and a pastor. What I’ve experienced and seen have made me both uncomfortable, yet also very glad. Maybe one day I’ll share my experiences in greater detail here. A lot of things have been happening in the past few weeks and I’ve not written much about them at all (that’s why I’ve been quite silent on the blog!) because these are things that are quite sensitive and I’d have to write carefully (which takes time and a lot of thinking) if I were to share them.

As I see more people reading this blog, I’ve had to be extra careful in what I write. Especially because I touch on a lot of sensitive and controversial issues here. I don’t want my blog to be like others that just attack this or that church or teaching. On the other hand, a lot of these controversial issues are close to my heart and I know a lot of people think about them and struggle with them (just like I do) and thus I don’t want to just sweep them under the carpet and ignore issues that I think are worth discussing. That just wouldn’t be me. However, it’s also not me to come out strongly on one side and attack another. I think for any controversial issue, there are always good and bad on each side. There are good and biblical reasons for holding the view that each side holds to. Not that both sides are correct. But at least there are good reasons why people from each side believe in what they do. In regards to the above two churches, I respect both New Creation and City Harvest a lot but am not enamored by either Pastor Prince or Kong Hee to the extent that I think they can believe and do no wrong.

Anyway, recently I got to know a City Harvest member who is also a School of Theology (SOT) student. Her sister happens to be a cell leader at New Creation. I reckon any theological conversations between the two would be pretty darn interesting! Both churches of course disagree quite fundamentally with the other’s theology and focus. Generally, City Harvest would consider New Creation’s grace teachings as antinomian and New Creation would view City Harvest’s teachings as tending towards legalism.

This person shared about City Harvest’s teaching on the Tabernacle. I’ve heard such teachings before in other charismatic churches I’ve been to. The teaching goes like this: There were three parts to the Old Testament Tabernacle - the Outer Court, the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies - with each coinciding with a greater experience of God. In the Old Testament, not everyone but only the High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies and commune with God in this intimate way. However, for Christians today, because of what Jesus did, we have the opportunity or potential to enter the Holy of Holies during our time with God. However, not all Christians will experience such intimate fellowship with God in the Holy of Holies. Only those who press in and really seek after God would have such an intimate experience. Those who don’t really press in are still at the Holy Place or the Outer Court and thus experience God in a less intimate way.

The above teaching is often used to compel Christians to seek a greater and more intimate experience of God:

Where are you now? Are you in the Holy Place or the Outer Court? Do you want to enter into the Holy of Holies and experience God in a more intimate way? If you want to enter into the Holy of Holies, you have to surrender to God. You have to seek Him and press in…

I have a lot of problems with this sort of teaching because the way I see it, it’s just not biblical. It denies a very fundamental aspect of the gospel - that “in Christ” we have access to God and are already in the Holy of Holies. The book of Hebrews makes it very clear that we have access to God by faith in Christ and what He did: “…we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place (i.e. Holy of Holies) by the blood of Jesus…” (Hebrews 10:19). In the Old Testament, the presence of God was in the Holy of Holies. Not anyone could enter. Only the high priest who consecrated himself could enter the place and then only once a year. Jesus’ death did away with such a system. By his blood, we can enter the very presence of God. Therefore, for anyone to say that some Christians are only at the Outer Court or Most Holy Place and not in the Holy of Holies and that they need to press on and surrender more or whatever to enter the Holy of Holies is to say that it’s by our works and efforts that we enter God’s holy presence! The Bible says it’s by faith and the blood of Jesus that we enter God’s holy presence! In the Old Testament, the high priest had to consecrate and prepare himself to enter the Holy of Holies. All this was a shadow of what was to come. In Jesus, we don’t need to do anything (prepare ourselves by surrendering more or striving more, etc.) to enter the Holy of Holies. We just need to believe in Christ and His finished work.

Therefore, I believe that every Christian has already entered into the Holy of Holies. We have access to God because of what Christ did for us. We don’t need to seek more or strive more to enter the Holy of Holies.

Anyway, this sister shared about how she sought a deeper “Holy of Holies” experience with God and was touched deeply by God. What do I think of that? While I disagree with the theology behind the teaching, I have no reason to deny that God did touch her in a special way, that she did experience God in a deeper way. Just because I think the teaching that inspired her and many Christians to seek God in a greater way is unbiblical doesn’t mean that I think her experience was not of God. I do believe God touched her. I just wouldn’t refer to that experience as a “Holy of Holies” experience.

I’ve always believed that many times God moves in our lives in spite of our theology. If God were to bless only correct theology, then not many people would be blessed. This is not to deny the importance of good theology. It’s just to acknowledge that God is more gracious and much bigger than we think.

What this sister experienced was a deeper experience of God. While all Christians are already in the Holy of Holies, this doesn’t mean that people don’t experience God in different ways and in different qualities. We all grow in our experience with God. We all should be seeking God more and more. Entering the Holy of Holies doesn’t mean we’ve crossed the finish line and there’s nothing more to do or strive for. Certainly, we’ve crossed the finish line in terms of being perfect and righteous because of Christ’s work on the cross. Nothing can take that away from us. But our Christian life is a journey. We learn and we grow. We don’t stay stagnant. And we definitely experience God in greater ways.

So while I may have problems with the teachings that was used to justify this sister’s experience, I have no doubt that her experience was of God and that it was good for her. She may have believed in the wrong things, but her heart was right and God blessed her sincerity and those of many others who may have believed wrongly.

There is no doubt that if the above teaching is taught in an extreme manner and received wrongly, there may be many Christians in bondage and condemnation for not having “reached” the level of entering into the Holy of Holies. This may be the case. But I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt and while disagreeing with the above teaching, I recognize that many lives have been transformed for the better as Christians are challenged to seek God more and more. To me, this can only be a good thing. And maybe at times better than if one has the right theology regarding the Tabernacle of God and yet become passive and don’t continuously seek God or the filling of the Spirit (Ephesians 5:18).

I’ve been listening to Andrew Wommack recently. The below is really a continuation from my posts here and here:

You do not lose your right standing with God if you sin. What a wonderful truth and what a radical truth to our modern day Christianity. Most Christians have been taught that when you come to the Lord, God forgives you and cleanses you and you become a new person. But then, everytime you sin, you lose that right standing with God and you have to confess that sin and put it under the blood and get back under there and if you don’t, God is displeased with you and he can’t accept you and if you were to die before you get all those sins repented of and confessed, you would go to hell. In a sense, those people are teaching you have to be born again again. That’s not eternal redemption. That’s not eternal inheritance. That’s saying that one offering of Jesus didn’t sanctify and perfect you forever (see Hebrews 10:14). But you were only sanctified and perfected until the next time you blow it, which is constantly. And a person who believes that is never going to really develop and see great growth in their life because everytime you sin you lose it all and you have to start over again. That’s not what the Scriptures teach. The Scriptures teach that you were forgiven of past, present and even future tense.

…I know that some people listening to me are saying, “Well, if people believe what you say then they’ll just go live in sin because you’re saying that they can’t lose their salvation, that God loves them anyway… That would just encourage them to go live in sin!”

Well, Paul dealt with the same thing. In Romans 6:1, he says, “What shall we say, then? Am I saying we should continue in sin that grace may abound?” Of course the answer to that is “God forbid”… If this question never comes up, if a person never says, “What are you saying? That God loves me anyway? That I remain righteous and I don’t lose my right standing with God so therefore are you saying I could just go live in sin?” If that question never comes up, then you haven’t preached the same gospel that Paul preached because it came up to him not once but four different times he dealt with this. He said, “What am I saying? Do we continue in sin? God forbid!” But eventhough you have to explain and say, “No, that’s not what I’m saying”, it should be a logical question. If that question never comes up, which in most cases it doesn’t. Most churches today nobody is interpreting them as saying “can you just go live in sin” because they’re preaching so hard against sin and they basically tie God’s love to you and acceptance of you to your performance. That’s the typical message that’s preached. That’s not what the Bible preaches.

(Eternal Redemption, Andrew Wommack, 31:20 onwards)

[A]nybody teaching grace who does not encounter the same arguments and have to explain that they are not advocating a life of sin, has not preached grace the way that Paul did. If, in our efforts to prevent misuse, we present grace in such a way that no one ever accuses us of giving people a license to sin, then we haven’t presented grace correctly.

(Commentary on Romans 6:1, Andrew Wommack)

The glory of the gospel is that God has declared Christians to be rightly related to him in spite of their sin. But our greatest temptation and mistake is to try to smuggle character into his work of grace. How easily we fall into the trap of assuming that we can only remain justified so long as there are grounds in our character for justification. But Paul’s teaching is that nothing we do ever contributes to our justification.

…[A]t the end of the day what Satan did in the Garden of Eden was to introduce the notion of legalism into the nature of the relationship that Adam and Eve had with God. And although there is a dialogue in which Eve is defensive in Genesis 3, what Satan asks is, “Has God put you in this garden and said, ‘You are not to eat of any of the trees of this garden?’”

And I think you can see in the narrative from that point onward she struggles with the answer. “Well, now there is this one tree.” But there is no recognition that he has showered upon us these great things, these other trees.

I was reared in the notion that what Satan was doing there was questioning the authority of God’s word (which he does). But more important, in that context, he was really questioning the character of the God by saying, “Don’t you see he really isn’t generous?”

Satan is saying God is like a father who takes his child into some phenomenally wonderful children’s department store the week before Christmas, shows him everything, and says to him with a cynical laugh, “And none of this is going to be yours this Christmas.”

It is the distortion. I am no psychiatrist, but I think at the human level that inevitably produces a child who will either willfully rebel or find himself always feeling he has got to do something to earn his father’s love.

It may be speculative to ask what it is the deepest thing in Satan’s heart against God. But I think there clearly is that jealously to demean his character. And the demeaning of the character of God, I think, injects into all that lies behind what we call legalism.

(Sinclair Ferguson)

C.J. Mahaney is doing an interview with Dr. Sinclair Ferguson. So far, it’s been awesome. Lots of stuff said which I resonate with. As I mentioned before, I love Mahaney’s and Sovereign Grace Ministries’ focus on the gospel and the cross.

Dr. Sinclair Ferguson is Reformed in theology, as is Mahaney. If you’re a non-charismatic, then you may be familiar with Ferguson and with a lot of authors I’ve quoted in the past and will quote in future. I’ve learned a lot from this branch of the Church, though do not agree with everything from there now. But I learned the gospel of grace from there over 10 years ago. But I have to qualify this because I think that while some of the biggest proponents of the gospel of grace come from that tradition, some of the biggest proponents of a legalistic “mixture” gospel come from there too.

So anyway, I’ll quote a lot from authors and theologians to whom many charismatics may be unfamiliar with. I think this shows two things. Firstly, for charismatics who criticize New Creation’s gospel of grace, it’s not just New Creation you’re criticizing. The most essential aspects of New Creation’s gospel of grace did not originate from Pastor Prince or New Creation at all. I would argue that it originated from the 16th Century Reformation. (I’m not going to say it originated from Paul eventhough I do think so because that doesn’t help in clarifying things, if you know what I mean). Secondly, for non-charismatics who criticize New Creation’s gospel of grace, I think it should be noted that (I believe) many non-charismatics who are firmly established in good Reformation theology would totally dig the kind of gospel message that is preached at New Creation. Of course, they have to get past the little sprinklings of the prosperity message here and there, which I believe has never been the main emphasis of New Creation. In all my years (over 10) as a believer in the gospel of grace, I’ve been to many Churches - charismatic and non-charismatic - and I’ve never heard the gospel of grace so beautifully preached as I’ve heard it in New Creation.

And so we go back to Sinclair Ferguson’s interview:

The evangelical orientation is inward and subjective. We are far better at looking inward than we are looking outward. We need to expend our energies admiring, exploring, expositing, and extolling Jesus Christ.

… I realized by looking at the literature that was being produced (including the literature I was producing), that it had more about how to live the Christian life.

…For preachers it’s much easier to seek to bring about conviction of sin and expose sin than to magnify and glory in the Lord Jesus.

A person who truly understands the gospel of Jesus Christ knows that Christ and His work on the cross is what Christianity is all about. Nowadays, churches talk more about what we should do for God, than about what God did for us in Christ. Sunday after Sunday, it’s about how we ought to live better and more Christlike lives. So much burden is placed upon us every Sunday that we start to get the idea that the most important thing in Christianity is what happens inside us. There is no doubt God changes us and doesn’t leave us the way we were before we became Christians. However, whatever change happens and no matter how much we grow in practical holiness, our lives still fall short of perfection. That’s why we need to always keep our eyes on Christ and what He did on the cross - something that is outside of us - than focus on any change in our lives. Preachers should spend less time pointing out how imperfect and sinful we are (which unwittingly occurs when they focus on how we ought to live better Christian lives) and more time pointing out how perfect and righteous we are because of Christ. This brings glory to Him and motivates us to lead a more Christlike life - not out of fear of punishment or hope of rewards, but out of gratitude for what Christ has done for us.

If grace is the essence of theology, then as Berkouwer said, gratitude must be the essence of ethics.

John Wesley once declared that if we took grace too seriously, especially the doctrine of election, it would undermine our only basis for pursuing a holy life - fear of punishment and hope of rewards. But isn’t that a selfish motivation for the Christian life? That’s always been the fear - “Too much grace! It’ll throw a wrench in the whole process of Christian growth.”

But the Scriptures insist that a legalistic view of the Christian life is what leads us right back to fear and bondage. Since the Law, though good, in and of itself can never give us the power to perform what it commands, the gospel not only reconciles us to God in the first place, it’s the only fuel we have to keep us going in the process of sanctification. Therefore, gratitude - not fear of punishment or hope of rewards - is the only proper basis for pursuing a holy and God-glorifying existence.

If our salvation depended upon us for one moment, even in the slightest degree, we would eventually either become self-righteous, pretending that we were actually pulling it off, or we would despair of ever knowing whether God really accepted us. How could we possibly love God and serve our neighbor freely if we were still caught up in the saving of our own skin?

(Michael Horton, Guilt, Grace & Gratitude)

This is my all-time favorite Christian song. It’s a hymn. The melody is not contemporary so it gets some getting used to. But once you get used to it, it’s beautiful. And the lyrics are so meaningful. This is the kind of song I like to sing. All about God’s love. All about Christ’s death. All about the gospel of Jesus Christ. It’s really a moving song. I wish more churches (especially charismatic ones) sang it. It’s normally sung in non-charismatic churches and with the organ but I love it when it’s sung to contemporary instruments - though I’ve only ever heard it like that once and that was 10 years ago.

And can it be that I should gain
An interest in the Savior’s blood?
Died He for me, who caused His pain
For me, who Him to death pursued?
Amazing love! How can it be
That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?
Amazing love! How can it be
That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?

‘Tis mystery all! The Immortal dies:
Who can explore His strange design?
In vain the firstborn seraph tries
To sound the depths of love divine
‘Tis mercy all! Let earth adore
Let angel minds inquire no more.
‘Tis mercy all! Let earth adore
Let angel minds inquire no more.

He left His Father’s throne above
So free, so infinite His grace
Emptied Himself of all but love
And bled for Adam’s helpless race
‘Tis mercy all, immense and free
For O my God, it found out me!
‘Tis mercy all, immense and free
For O my God, it found out me!

Long my imprisoned spirit lay
Fast bound in sin and nature’s night
Thine eye diffused a quickening ray
I woke, the dungeon flamed with light
My chains fell off, my heart was free
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.
My chains fell off, my heart was free
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.

No condemnation now I dread
Jesus, and all in Him, is mine
Alive in Him, my living Head
And clothed in righteousness divine
Bold I approach the eternal throne
And claim the crown, through Christ my own.
Bold I approach the eternal throne
And claim the crown, through Christ my own.

Al Mohler, in his book Sex and the Supremacy of Christ, mentions seven principles that he believes ought to guide a Christian’s response to the issue of homosexual marriage. One of them struck me:

We must be the people who love homosexuals more than homosexuals love homosexuality.

I think that’s spot on. Whatever your view of homosexuality, you can’t go wrong with the above.

[T]here are two ways and only two ways to read the Bible. You can read the Bible as if it is all about you and what you must do, and what you have to run around doing in order to get the blessing. Or you can read every part of the Bible as all about Him and what He has done for you. Is it all about you or is it all about Him? (Tim Keller)

This is part two of my previous post here. I quoted John Piper in part one and highlighted how Piper said that “many people are willing to be God-centered as long as they feel that God is man-centered.” This statement is of course meant to be a criticism of a Christianity that places the focus on man on the premise that God is man-centered.

Is Piper’s criticism valid? To answer this, I think the question needs to be asked if God is man-centered. It’s not a question often asked, but it’s an interesting question. And I believe the answer is, yes, God is to a certain extent man-centered!

I quoted Tim Keller above. Tim Keller is someone I like to listen to and read because he talks a lot about the gospel. He’s gospel-centered. In the above quote, he points out something interesting. If you read his statement carefully, he equates the Bible being “all about Him” as reading the Bible as “what He has done for you”. In other words, being God-centered in one’s reading of the Bible is really reading the Bible to see what God has done for us. That’s why I said above that I believe God is to a certain extent man-centered.

It doesn’t sound right, does it? To say that God is man-centered. But I believe that’s to a certain extent true. I mean, what is the Bible all about? From the very beginning to the very end, the Bible is a story about God as a missionary God (Announcing The Kingdom, Arthur F. Glasser). Whether we like it or not, the whole Bible is all about God’s mission in this world - His mission to rescue man through His Son Jesus Christ. Yes, God was on a mission to rescue us! The whole Bible is all about this “mystery” (Ephesians 1:9) of God saving man being revealed progressively.

This is not to deny that the ultimate purpose of man is to glorify God. But what is it that inspires us to do that? It’s knowing that God so loved us that He sent His Son to die for us. Of course, we are to live and die for God. But what inspires us to do so? It’s knowing that God first lived and died for us in His Son Jesus Christ.

Surely, our lives should be focused on God. Surely, we ought to love Him. But we love Him only because He first loved us (1 John 4:19). It’s about His love for us first, not our love for Him:

This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. (1 John 4:10)

Dare we deny that God is to a certain extent man-centered in his love for us? After all, who is the recipient of God’s love? US! His love is centered upon us, upon man!

Let me mention one last point. Many Christians would accept the above (they really have no choice because that’s the gospel!), but still be uncomfortable with too much gospel preaching that is centered on man. They kind of have the idea that too much of such “man-centered” gospel preaching makes “Him a means to [our] self-esteem” (see Piper’s quote). For example, Paul Washer said:

Yes the Savior manifests love toward the sinner. But what you need to understand is that it’s not because of some worth or value in you. The Cross is not a sign of your great worth. The Cross is a sign of your great depravity; that you are so evil the only way you could be saved is by God’s Son being crushed under the full force of the wrath that was due you…

I agree that the cross is in a sense a sign of our great depravity. Is it also a sign of man’s great worth? By even entertaining that question, I’m getting into dangerous territory. People like Washer and Piper want to make man as little as possible and God as big and magnified as possible. And that’s why they say the things they do. I understand where they’re coming from. But I think that sometimes this can be overdone. Was the cross in any way a sign of man’s great worth? I think I’ll have no problem saying that there’s a bit of truth in that. It’s not because man deserves the cross. But because man is made in the image of God and is special in God’s eyes. I don’t think we do God or the Bible justice when we ignore the important fact that though fallen, man was made in the image of God. We’re different from animals and plants. While we’ve fallen and we’re sinners, that doesn’t mean we’ve suddenly become nothing of value in God’s eyes. I think that’s going to the opposite extreme.

But let me say this to end. I think a better statement than saying that “The cross is not a sign of our great worth, but our great depravity” is simply saying that “The cross is a sign of God’s great love for us”. It’s ultimately not about whether we’re worthy or not worthy. It’s ultimately about God’s great love for us. Whether one believes that the reason for God’s great love for us has anything to do with the fact that we were made in the image of God doesn’t really matter. (Of course, one can argue that we were made in God’s image because of God’s love for us in the beginning, and I totally accept that). Ultimately, what matters is that God loves us and God centers His love upon us when He sent His Son Jesus to die for our sins. We are the objects of God’s love. That, I think, is totally biblical. And that, I think, is to a certain extent man-centered.