stillhaventfound.org

Just watched the above. Awesome, awesome stuff. Need to watch more of these kind of things! The more I watch them, the more my heart is challenged to get out of this comfort zone which I’ve been in far too long. As I mentioned here, reading The Heavenly Man really challenged me. And I’ll probably look back upon that as a defining moment in my life. It made me think really seriously about being a missionary to China. It made me think seriously about being a missionary to a persecuted area. It made me think seriously about improving my really bad Chinese (Mandarin)!

I stopped learning Chinese when I was 10 years old when I left for Australia. When I returned back to Singapore, I didn’t want to study Chinese (I had too much to catch up) and was allowed to take German as my second language. So I’m your typical English-educated Banana/Potato (white on the inside, yellow on the outside for those not in the know) Singaporean who grew up not really liking Chinese. Of course I regret not continuing my Chinese because I’m so far behind now. People talk about Singaporeans being poor in their Chinese and that makes me even more discouraged to pick it up now because I’m so much worse than the typical Singaporean of my age! But I think I may pick it up real soon. Not sure whether I should because I don’t know if I’ll use it in future. Besides the fact that I’d like to spend time mastering my Spanish, I’m also not sure if I’ll go to China in future. I think there are places in the world that need missionaries more urgently than China - like Muslim nations and the unreached places. And anyway, I’m not sure how much I’m needed in China. The lives of Christians there would put all of us to shame. They know what it means to live for Jesus more than any of us. They know what persecution is about and they’d gladly suffer it. That can’t be said of us in the developed world. They’d make so much better missionaries to unsafe places (like Muslim nations) because they’ve experienced enough in their own country to not fear persecution!

Christianity in China is easily the real deal - clearly what Christianity is meant to be like. Of course, such forms of Christianity (when people are truly living for God and not building their own kingdom) are seen everywhere. But I don’t see much of it in the developed world. The Christians in China and places like that are the true warriors of faith. No doubt about that. No Christian leader in the developed world (no matter how famous or well-known) could even compare to most of those faceless heroes in China and the like.

I can’t wait to get Brother Yun’s new book Living Water. Though I don’t expect to agree with all the teachings in it (the book is meant to be of his teachings). I can admire his dedication to God without agreeing with everything he teaches. One can live the true Christian life without having one’s doctrines perfect, just as one can have his doctrines perfect (or more perfect) yet not live as one ought to live. I admire his lifestyle. But I probably wouldn’t agree with everything he teaches. I wasn’t comfortable with some of the songs I heard on the above video which focused more on what the Christians are going to do for God, rather than on what God has done for them in Christ. I still love grace and believe that good biblical teaching and preaching should be focused primarily on God’s grace as shown to us in Christ’s death for us. And that’s clear in the posts I’ve written on grace. What God has done for us in Christ is what the gospel is all about. The gospel of Christ is the message of God’s love for us in Christ. The gospel is not about about what we ought to do for God, it’s what God has already done for us. And yet there’s also a side of me that believes so greatly on giving my all to God - a place I’m very far from now, of course. (If I’m truly living that out, I won’t have time to blog. Duh!) I believe that Christians are called to give their all, to stop building their kingdom (which I think most Christians are actually doing, especially in the developed world) and to start living wholeheartedly for God and His glory alone. How do I reconcile the emphasis on God’s grace and the call to give all? It’s difficult. There’s a certain tension there, I admit. I love New Creation’s grace message (not everything, but a lot), but in my opinion there’s no way that the lives of the majority of the members of New Creation reflect how Christians are meant to live. I love the passion and zeal among City Harvest members for the lost (when they’re not thinking only of money), though I can’t agree with a lot of the teachings which lack the focus of grace. The lifestyle of City Harvest members challenges me (when they’re not chasing after money). I want to be in such an environment. It’s definitely closer to what I envision Christianity is meant to be, than it is in New Creation. The missions and reaching the lost. That’s beyond exciting! That’s what it’s meant to be like!

While I’ve been generally supportive of the Florida Healing Revival, I’d prefer to see Christianity in China as a model of how Christianity ought to be like. Up to this point, I don’t doubt that what’s happening in Florida is the work of God. But we also have to get our perspectives right. Christianity isn’t all about healing and miracles. Jesus promised persecution. Christianity as it’s meant to be would be filled with healings, miracles and persecutions too. It’ll be filled with suffering and victory. All of that happened in Brother Yun’s life and in the lives of many Chinese Christians. And I’m very sure that one day the Church will be awakened from its state of slumber. We will see increased healings and miracles, but also increased persecution. To tell you the truth, I can’t wait for that day…

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.

Prosperity is how much of a blessing are you to someone else. That’s the way that God evaluates it. (The Unjust Steward, Andrew Wommack, 40:38 onwards)

When you get to where the priority on your finances isn’t for you, but rather it’s to bless someone else, then God will assume the liability of taking care of you. And when God takes care of you, he will take care of you better than you would ever take care of yourself. (The Unjust Steward, Andrew Wommack, 53:44 onwards)

Go back to Ephesians 4:28. It says let him that stole steal no more. But rather let him labor, working with his hands the thing that is good, that he may have to give to him that needs. The reason for your working should be to have to give to him that needs. (The Unjust Steward, Andrew Wommack, 41:39 onwards)

I recently finished Andrew Wommack’s series on Financial Stewardship. Wommack is from the Word of Faith (aka Health and Wealth, Prosperity Gospel) movement but his views on money are amazingly refreshing. This movement has been heavily criticized (and I’d have to say most of the time probably rightly so) for focusing excessively on money and material things, and thus promoting or encouraging greed in its adherents.

I do believe strongly in God wanting to prosper Christians. Of course, there are nuances that need to be made in regards to my previous statement. I haven’t got it all figured out yet and one day maybe I’ll get down to thinking and writing more about it. But for now, I’m unsatisfied with the view of those who say that there are no promises of prosperity for Christians. On the other hand, I’m cannot agree with the lifestyle of a lot of these prosperity preachers. There have been too many documented abuses and excesses in the movement. And yet, that doesn’t mean that there’s nothing we can learn from the message of these Christians.

I believe that if every Word of Faith preacher believed (and lived out) the same things regarding how money ought to be used (stewardship) as Andrew Wommack, the movement would have so much more credibility. As I’ve said a few times on this blog, I strongly believe in “Blessed to be a blessing” and “Prosperity with a purpose”. These are slogans thrown around in the Word of Faith movement. I think they are biblical slogans. It’s just that I think very few people in the movement truly live them out, eventhough they claim to believe in them. I feel that most of the time it’s just used as a justification for asking God to bless us materially.

If one day the movement is known for how much of a blessing they are to others, then I would truly salute them. Right now, I think it’s obvious that we hear a lot more about how God wants to bless us for our own sake, rather than to bless us so that we can bless others.

…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 had a short talk with my uncle last night. He just went into financial advising/planning. And so my dad asked me to talk to him regarding doing some investments with him. I have a bit of money from the insurance or whatever from my mother’s death 17 years ago. My dad’s been keeping it for me and last year when I was in Australia I asked him to put it into some investments. It was fortunate that he hadn’t invested it yet due to what happened recently in the economy. So today he asked me to talk to my uncle for a while regarding investing it now.

I’m not young and most people my age would already be well into investing and planning for their future life. Or at least they would have found out about all this stuff. For me, I don’t really care. I know a bit, but I’m not exactly keen to know more and get into all this financial thing. I asked my dad to invest the money last year because I didn’t know what to do with it. I hadn’t decided yet and so I thought I’ll get the money back from him and just invest it.

Inside me, I really hate all this focus on financial planning and making sure that one has enough money for their future and all. If non-Christians do that, then that’s understandable. It’s good to plan financially for your future. After all, for most non-Christians, the focus is on their life here and now. But when I see Christians into financially planning the same way that non-Christians are into it, I have to totally disagree.

One wise pastor I respect once asked what are the qualities that good leaders ought to have. Then he asked whether the qualities that good Christian leaders ought to have would be any different? His point was that the qualities of a good Christian leader ought to be different from what society expects of a leader in general. The same can be said of a good Christian businessman. Being a Christian ought to make a difference. Our faith ought to make a difference in the way we live and how we do things.

In the same way, I think how Christians use their money ought to be different from how non-Christians use their money. How Christians think about their future and the priorities they place on money ought to be different. Christians ought to have an eternal perspective. And to me that means not building your kingdom here on earth. Society in most countries (and especially in Singapore) expect us to think about our future and life in terms of mainly our career, family, children’s education, etc. Money is of utmost importance in the non-Christian’s life. It’s all about making sure that we have enough of it so that we can survive and even thrive. And sad to say, this has been the view of almost every Christian I’ve met.

And so my uncle started to explain to me why it’s important to save and be prepared for the future. I told him that I don’t believe it’s important to save and invest because God will provide for me and the money can be better used now to help other people who need it more than me. Yes, I told my father to invest my money because I didn’t know what I wanted to do with it. Inside me, I don’t believe in saving and investing money for the future - at least not in the way the whole world does it. But it’s also hard for me to live out this belief of mine because it’s so radical.

Why don’t I believe in saving and investing for the future the way the world does? I can think of at least two reasons now:

1) Life is not about building my kingdom. I think we can define “kingdom” in today’s terms as “me and my (future) family”. I’m a very simple person in that I want to live out what the Bible says. I don’t want to do it half-heartedly, because if I’m not hoping to do it fully, I may as well not do it at all. The Bible very clearly says that we’ve been forgiven in Christ so that we can love God and others. The love of Christ compels me to live for Him. To think about Him and His kingdom, not mine. There isn’t any greater meaning in this world than to live for the God who so loved me that He sent His Son to die for me. And so if I had money to spare, should I save it up for myself and my family in future or should I give it away to help people who need it so much more than I do - trusting that as I do the right thing, God will provide for me? I think the answer is obvious. It’s just whether I want to do the right thing or not.

2) I think often of the “Do not worry” passage (Matthew 6:25-34). I think often of how I hardly know any Christian who lives it out or even comes near to doing so. It’s simply too radical. Do not worry? Don’t worry about what we shall eat or drink or wear?? Just seek first God’s kingdom and everything will be OK? Wow, that’s faith in God’s providence.

Isn’t it the worry of what people would eat, drink and wear in future that motivates people to save and invest for the future? Isn’t it simply the lack of trust that God will provide in every way that makes us just focus on accumulating and investing money for ourselves and our future, rather than using it to help those who need it more than us right now?

I’ve got so many more things to say. But I’ll leave it at here. I do hope to read up more about what Christians think of investment. And I’m going to pray about what I should do with the money. As for why I’ve come to the above radical conclusion, read my Poverty and the Moral Responsibility of the Rich to the Poor and Encountering Peter Singer.

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)