152. OF MOUNTAINS and MOLEHILLS: [2] Climbing the Molehill instead of the Mountain
 
What is the "gospel?"

Is it "Go tell it on the mountain that Jesus Christ has come," or
is it "Go preach it on the molehill that our doctrine is right?"

Has the "good news" changed since the first century?
During the first several centuries following Pentecost, Christians primarily had oral traditions as guidelines for determining God's will. Preachers and evangelists would teach the word and epistles would be circulated and perhaps copied, but the main source of written scripture was the Old Testament. For the first approximately 300 years, Christians proclaimed the gospel to unbelievers mainly by their lives, their behavioral conduct, and often by the way they died in martyrdom.

So, is this really the "good news" -- that you get to die early? Doesn't sound like anything very good. But people kept doing that martyr thing for some reason. There must be something to this message -- that so many people would be so dedicated to this Jesus person that they would choose to die rather than give up.

After Christianity became the accepted (state) religion of Rome, a secular "stamp of approval" was placed on the gospel. Christianity was increasingly centralized under the control of an institution embodied by men who officially interpreted what the scripture said; and, sometimes that interpretation was scholarly and sometimes it was more political. The mixture of politics and religion produced disagreements over power control and self interests, and separation of groups and governments began to occur. More and more, the gospel became less of a way of life and more of a doctrinal view of the scripture through a particular chosen interpretation. The gospel was protected from change and doled out by the organization that called itself "the church." The "good news" became more like the "good institution." The church institution retained the power of religion because it essentially controlled access to the scripture and set itself as the self-appointed conduit between God and man. This began to change with the invention of the printing press and the translations of the Bible into English and other languages, but the church institutions continued to hold onto their control as long as they could.

As folks other than church officials began to have access to the scripture, people had the opportunity to determine for themselves what constituted the "good news." But, even then, the good news was heavily influenced by traditional interpretations of passages that had been built into foundational support for certain pillars of church doctrine. When preconceptions about scriptural support for church doctrine persisted for generations, it became "it's always been this way." Preconceptions become what was accepted, and groups were built from those people who could agree about a particular doctrine. Since the groups became defined by their developed doctrine, the foundation and "reason to be" of the group was threatened by challenge or disagreement about the doctrine. The doctrine had to be protected and defended. Disagreement from the outside had to be contested; disagreement from the inside had to be purged. Thus, the groups tended to represent their particular doctrine as the "good news."

Scholars during the Reformation Movement objected to many of the immutable doctrines that had been developed through the centuries by the Roman Catholic church. Depending on the emphasis of the particular Reformer, the "good news" changed, or at least how it was presented changed. The gospel message was filtered through interpretations of scripture that were, in part, reactions to what had been considered erroneous doctrine of the Catholic Church. Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Knox, and others produced variants of interpretation of the gospel depending on their focus of objections to Catholic doctrine. There was an emphasis on salvation by grace with no works whatsoever, an emphasis on the redemption from sin through the sacrifice of Jesus, an emphasis on some individuals being foreknown and predestined by God to receive salvation and others not, an emphasis on the necessity of free will and the decision to accept God's extension of grace. The doctrine of the "Fall of Adam" and "original sin," as the "condemned default" of mankind without Christ, served as a contrast between the "good news" and the "bad news." If one could do a good enough job of letting sinners gaze into the pits of the hell they deserved, the alternative of salvation looked better by comparison. There were other variants and combinations of these doctrines of salvation, most of which still exist today in some form or another.
 
We know that God doesn't change - He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. God's word doesn't change; the Bible doesn't change. God's love through Jesus Christ doesn't change. What Jesus did for us doesn't change. But it should be obvious that human perception of God, the nature of God, and what God has revealed to us does change. The Bible doesn't change, but the translation can change, the understanding of the meaning changes, and certainly the application changes depending on the circumstances and time. The gospel, the "good news," doesn't change, but our understanding of what constitutes the gospel has changed since the first century.

Today, all the different answers to the simple question, "What must I do to be saved?" could fill a bookshelf.

In view of these changes in human perspective of God through Christ, the Restoration Movement began several hundred years ago to bypass the evolution of traditional doctrines developed since the first century and go back to the authority of the Bible. "Restore New Testament Christianity" was the theme which is still heard today. The movement began with a sincere "back to the Bible" motivation, but, unfortunately over time, different traditions and interpretations developed that were not written down, but which were still enforced by newspapers, journal editors, debates, and division. The churches within that movement have since struggled to come out of a binding legalistic hermeneutic that has been based more on the letter of the law than the on Spirit. The gospel went from "good news" to "good works," which has some truth, but only when viewed from a totally different perspective than when applied to the "correct way" to initially accept Christ.

So what is the "good news?" If we take the gospel with us and make disciples as we go, in accordance with what Jesus said in Matt. 28:18-20, what message do we represent as being the gospel and from where in the Scripture does it come? Although only the first four books of the New Testament are called "the gospels," the message of "salvation from default condemnation of man" derives, not from the gospels, but mainly from the books of Acts through Revelation. Those groups with heavy emphasis on what one must do to be saved draw their "proof texts" from Acts; those groups with particular emphasis on doctrine lean significantly on the epistles, particularly the first 8 chapters of Romans, where the "Great Doctrines of Salvation" are developed in detail.

So, what's the short of this history, and why does it end up not making good sense? We have the Bible that testifies to God, the love of God, and the plan of God as it evolved throughout recorded history. There is the record of Jesus Christ, who brought the final revelation of God and of God's plan and who fulfilled everything in the past and endowed everything for the future. We have the record of how the church was established and was directed by the Holy Spirit working through inspired writers to explain the plan, how the plan had been finally revealed, what the plan involves, and how the church is supposed to be enacting the plan. Exactly how the church is supposed to testify to the world is addressed in relatively few places in the New Testament.
 
What has the church ended up doing to represent to the world the love of God through Jesus Christ, the plan of God for all of creation, and the church's role in the world? Note that the question is "What is the church doing...," not "What is the church saying.... " And, by "the church," we mean at all levels .. what is the universal church doing, what are large groups doing, what are small groups doing, what are individual congregations doing about the gospel? The church already says a lot.

WWJD? Jesus said; we do:

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." John 13:34-35

"My prayer is not for them along. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they maybe one as we are one -- I in them and you in me-- so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me." John 17:20-13

"You are the light of the world..... let you light shine before men so that they may see your good deeds and praise God in heaven." Matt. 5:14-16

"...on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it." Matt. 16:18

Jesus came to earth, completely revealed the nature of the Father, and lived the perfect example of the Father's character. How is the church supposed to testify to the world about what Jesus did for us all? Is the church to say, "Hey everybody, we are the light of the world; we love one another; we are in unity," or is the church to do -- be light that shines, do love that serves, live unity that shows the love of the Father -- all are actions, not just words.

How is the church doing in preaching the good news by the way Christians are loving one another, maintaining the unity that was between the Son and the Father, letting the light of good deeds be seen, and overcoming the world without being overcome, itself? How attractive does the gospel look to the world through these church stained glass windows? Does the world see the church living this gospel or just talking about it?

Jesus said that "while we are going" we should be "making disciples ... teaching them to obey" everything He had commanded (Matt. 28:18-20) and for His church, as His representatives, to be His witnesses to all parts of the world (Acts 1:8).

What might this "witnessing" or "testifying" involve?

Paul said that the plan of God, made before the creation of the world and held in mystery until revealed through Christ, had been made known through the apostles -- which was then written and preserved for us in the Scripture. What is the church today supposed to do with this revelation?

The church is supposed to make known the wisdom of God in the eternal purpose that was accomplished through Christ.

Ephesians 3:7 -12 I became a servant of this gospel by the gift of God’s grace given me through the working of his power. Although I am less than the least of all God’s people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things. His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord. In him and through faith in him we may approach God with freedom and confidence.

How is this wisdom to be made known by the church? What does the Scripture say? There are references to the church being faithful even in the face of outside persecution (1 Pet. 4:19). There are references to the church handling its own affairs instead of inviting the world in to handle them (1 Cor. 6) and not engaging in worldly activities (1 Cor. 5). Where are references to what the church should preach to the world or to what the church should be doing as a witness to the world? Actually, there are few to none. The nearest reference to the church evangelizing unbelievers is in 1 Cor. 14:24-25, when an unbeliever comes into an assembly and recognizes God is present because people are prophesying in an orderly manner.
 
But the scripture is full of commands, admonitions, encouragements and examples of how the church is to behave within itself, with unity of mind and purpose, living in peace, and expressing love to God by serving one another. This is doing the gospel. Why would anyone consider the "news" to be "good" unless people showed how the "good" was working for them and through them.

So, how is the church doing at making the manifold wisdom of God known? And the answer is? Surely we don't have to go through all the surveys to find out why more and more people are leaving organized Christianity, surveys of people who aren't particularly committed to anything religious anymore, surveys showing that more of the youth leave the church every generation? Do we have to go through the signs in society and government and argue about it based more on our special interests than on scripture? Do we have to talk about disunity and division and competition within the body of Christ? Can't we just skip all the "going into denial routine" and admit that it's not going well for the universal church?

Do Christians not understand the foreordained plan of God except when interpreted through a human institutional matrix? If the church were carrying out the plan of God and testifying to the manifold wisdom of God, it would look as described by Paul in Ephesians 4:11-16 -- 

It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.

The body of Christ works together in love, peace, and unity so that everyone heads toward the goal -- unity in the faith, becoming mature in the faith, attaining the full knowledge of the Son of God - the fullness of Christ, speaking the truth in love, growing up into Christ, as the body builds itself up in love. This is the prime directive for the church. Evangelism occurs when the world sees the church accomplishing its prime directive. Evangelicals are Christians obeying the prime directive. In this sense, the entire church is both evangelical and missional, because the church is showing the manifold wisdom of God in the design of His foreordained plan, made before time began.

That's preaching the good news; that's confessing "Jesus Christ is Lord." That describes a body of Christians who are, together, "growing to be like God in true righteousness and holiness" through their love for God and for one another. That is believers who are being transformed into the image of the Creator by renewal of the mind (Col. 3:10) to understand the will of God (Rom. 12:2) as set out in His predestined plan.

That's the gospel. We are growing to be like God in fellowship in the divine nature both now (2 Pet. 1:4) and throughout eternity. Why wouldn't anyone desire to be a part of that? People accepting Christ is sometimes referred to as "obeying the gospel." We have that backwards. The church is the one to obey the gospel. God accepts those who believe through His love and grace.

What other gospel is there?

Some of the Jewish Christians in the first century church had another gospel -- it was called "accept Christ and show your worthiness by keeping the Law of Moses." Perhaps they considered that Christ could be accepted as Savior only if one went through the circumcision requirement of the Old Law as they had done. Even though the Law was condemning because one could never attain righteousness, the Jews still wanted the Gentile believers to go through the route of a proselyte to Judaism. If it was "to the Jew first, then also to the Greek," let's just put the requirements of salvation in that order, too. The road to Jesus went through the Law.
 
So, the Jews set up the Law as a precedent to Jesus. Perhaps they didn't fully understand the predestined plan of God and how the enactment of that plan took precedence over everything -- over the Law, circumcision, over "that's how we've always done it," over "the unbeliever has to be obedient." No, it's none of this. All of man's opinions, interpretations, and doctrines submit to the perfect plan of the eternal God -- the creator of all things in accordance with His will -- which is the Unifying Field Law of Everything in the Universe -- that we were created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness (Eph. 4:24).

So, does the church understand the plan of God? Do Christians understand the plan of God? If they did, why aren't things working better? Sometimes the world seems to understand the expectations for Christians better than Christians do, themselves. And, the world sees when the church falls short, even while much of Christianity seems to be in denial.

Marketing the gospel?

The following does not represent an "inside" view of evangelism. Whatever deficiencies in preaching the gospel to the world are almost always unintentional. The present discussion describes a perception from the "outside" -- what people see when they approach the Christian message from a different mindset and set of assumptions. Who is right - inside or outside? Maybe everyone is correct to some degree; maybe no one. But, whatever barrier of understanding there may be, doesn't it behoove the people with the mind of Christ to initiate the removal of the barrier?

If a salesman (gender neutral) were trying to convince someone that they needed to move from one place to another, the salesman would need to show the person some sort of contrast to the their present living situation. Either the new place is so much better, or else the person lives in a really bad place now -- in a much worse condition than the person realized. The salesman would be at a disadvantage if his company couldn't represent the new location very well, because the company didn't maintain that great a location, either. In fact, what if the location the salesman is trying to describe is much better than what the company maintains for itself? That compromised contrast would not be too convincing. Therefore, the salesman tries to convince the person that his present location is much worse than the person realized -- in fact, the person is living in condemned housing. "You wouldn't want to be caught dead there." Might be scary. Then again, the person might not be so convinced about his unworthy status if he found that the salesman was using outdated building codes to claim the building was condemned.

"What? That sounds like deliberate misrepresentation for selfish advantage. Come on, Christians don't do that!"

Let's not be in denial and deceive ourselves. Even if totally unintentional, that is the message and the motivation as it is perceived by many people who look at Christianity from the outside. Even if the reaction is exaggerated and not totally accurate, it can't be a total fabrication. It must be based on something real within the attitude of the church that should be addressed.

If the church doesn't show the world the manifold wisdom of God in His eternal plan, if the church is not building itself up in love but is instead entering into competition and division, and if the church behaves in a way that isn't any different from the world, then the church doesn't have a very convincing testimony to give to the world. So what is the remaining alternative? Is it judging the world against a standard the church is not keeping itself and placing the world under condemnation because that is the traditional doctrine?

The "Fall"

The "Fall of Mankind," "original sin," "the sin of Adam," "born into sin and a sinner from birth," and similar doctrines of inherent condemnation are not found in Genesis, nor were they doctrines of the New Testament church. These doctrines of sin and resulting condemnation are lifted from passages in Scripture, but the doctrines are based on a tradition of thinking passed down and protected for hundreds of years. No, it's not as if this is some sort of marketing scheme developed in the back room with the goal of "how can we make people buy into the gospel." But it is largely a doctrine that was developed during the Reformation Movement in reaction to teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Scriptures were found that could be used to support that new mindset. But, these presuppositions of "original sin" and a once-perfect world, that is now fallen, continue to greatly influence thinking and doctrine in Christianity today.

Condemnation of the world provides a contrast that highlights a need for the "divine rescue." This doctrine says that the foreordained plan of God predestined that mankind would fail, fall, and flop. The creation that God said to be "very good" was, in fact, not so good -- created with a fatal flaw. Either God had to make a divine adjustment because His creation wasn't so perfect after all, or else God built failure into His divine equation, perhaps even unfairly causing Adam and Eve to sin and reap the consequences. Does God learn by making mistakes? Hasn't some human said more than once, "Well, if I were God I would have done it this better way ....." (Of course, 1 Cor 1:19-21, 1 Cor. 2:18, and many other places say otherwise.)

[People may point to God supposedly admitting to mistakes when He repented of creating man because of sin and therefore destroyed the world by flood, and when God wanted to wipe out the children of Israel but Moses, and then Joshua, talked Him out of it. But these are written from a human perspective making a anthropomorphic assignment to God. Have to discuss that in another place.]

God didn't and doesn't make mistakes; God didn't fail in the creation; God didn't make Adam and Eve mess up their nice Garden. God didn't create everything perfect, as we usually perceive perfection, so it could fouled up. It was created in accordance with His plan, because the plan predated creation. "Good" and "very good" doesn't mean perfect as in God is perfect, but rather these created things were confirmed to be a part of His divine plan. A lot of this "perfect earth before Adam's sin" type of thinking comes from Young Earth Creationism that says one day all the animals were happy and existed together just fine, and there was no death. (Maybe this worked if one assumes everything was zapped into instant existence with full stomachs, and the next species came along before the previous ones could get hungry). But shortly (how long?) after creation came the "apple" episode, and then the fallen animals were killing and devouring each other -- all because of the consequences of Adam's sin. A literal interpretations of Gen 1-3, imposing our present English-speaking Western definitions of time and space, presents a chaotic picture of a creation that was supposed to bring order.That interpretation is inconsistent with other scripture and doesn't make sense.

A better explanation

The better alternative to God making mistakes, and having to come and bail out His plan gone sour, is that the entire sequence is part of God's foreordained plan of transformation. Transformation has occurred in one form or another from the initial spark of creation until the present time. There was physical and cosmic transformation in nature from a big bang (or whatever) to humankind. There was social, relational, organization, political, and religious changes as humankind grew in numbers and further matured. When this developmental phase had reached a critical physical, intellectual, and social threshold, Jesus Christ came and completed the phase of the Old Law and brought in the new phase. This phase started on the Day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was poured out on all humankind. The spiritual genes of God that coded for the character of Jesus Christ, manifested in His life on earth, were placed in our hearts for expression by the Holy Spirit into the fruit of the Spirit. This spiritual evolution is spiritual renewal, transformation, sanctification, glorification. There has been no "fall" and recovery -- it is a smooth transition that was planned before creation.

The pinnacle of the book of Romans is transformation, not a divine escape from condemnation
 
When the church doesn't understand that transformation into the likeness of God is the foreordained plan of God, the church is left with the alternate message of condemnation setting up salvation. This is how the book of Romans has been used. However, when one discerns the message of Romans beginning from the standpoint of transformation (Rom. 12:2), there is an entirely different conclusion than when one starts with a preconception out of the doctrine of "original sin" and "the Fall."

The epistle to the Romans was written by Paul "To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints" (Rom. 1:7). As in all other epistles in the New Testament, Romans was written to Christians who made up the church in a particular location -- in this case, Rome. This point seems obvious when said, but it is apparently not so obvious when it comes to determining the exact details of the composition of "the gospel" message and how the gospel should be represented to the world. The epistles were not written as evangelistic sermons to unbelievers to convince them that they needed Christ. The epistles were written to explain to the church how it should go about living out the plan of God as a testimony to the world and to the powers in the heavenly realms. When the church lives out the plan of God, the world can see the difference for itself and ask about it, without having it pointed out to them. It is the Holy Spirit who convicts the world of sin (John 16:8). Jesus didn't even say that the world was condemned, but it is the prince of the world (John 16:11). One might say, "Yeah, but condemnation is waiting for them, and we need to tell them." But it is the Holy Spirit who also convicts the world of judgment (John 16:8). It is not the job of the church to take God's position to judge and condemn anyone under the supposition that the church knows the mind of God and the fate of the universe. This is a doctrine that the institution of the Roman Catholic Church began presuming for itself soon after becoming the "state religion." Many denominations, restoration movement churches, and other fellowship groups that have derived from these movements would deny having any Catholic doctrine , but there are some presuppositions that still exist, even in a hidden subliminal way, that the church is in the business of rescuing people from the open fire-breathing mouth of hell instead of attracting people by showing them what the kingdom of heaven looks when the church is growing into the fullness of Christ. The church has shown that it is not fruitful to preach condemnation while growing into the fullness of Christ. It's like serving two masters.

Has "the gospel" changed from that of the first century? God's plan has not changed since before the universe was created, but the understanding of the church today as to its role in presenting the plan is not the same as described by Paul and is not the same as the descriptions by Jesus of the kingdom of God or the kingdom of heaven.

In that sense, yes, we do still need to establish New Testament Christianity. But further back than that, we need to establish the church's compliance with the foreordained plan of God, made before the creation of the world. We do not need to reestablish the beliefs of the Christian Pharisees who said new converts first had to pass through the briar patch of condemnation from the Old Law and its regulations, especially circumcision, before they would be qualified for Christ (Acts 15:5). Neither do we need to toss the world under the bus of legalistic condemnation as if the baptismal waters perform some sort of exorcism during a physical act that we humans control. Christians, and collectively the church, are to show the world what life in the Spirit looks like, what it looks like to take off the old nature and put on the new, and the evidence of being transformed into the likeness of God with every increasing glory in the love, peace, and unity of the Lord. This is transformation, renewal, sanctification, glorification -- the message of Romans and the eternal plan of God. It is becoming like God in true righteousness and holiness (Eph. 4:24).

But there are traces of the old way of legalistic-oriented thinking just about everywhere. It's been an accepted part of the scenery for so long that we don't notice it. In fact, we promote it. Legalistic thinking is like a viral infection. A virus injects foreign genetic material into a normal cell that "takes over" the cellular control and commandeers the cell's metabolic resources to produce more virus before self-destructing, thereby releasing and spreading more virus. This insidious infection cycle occurs quickly so that the virus spreads before the body can recognize and react to the foreign material. Legalism is like that. It spreads and takes over spiritual thinking and produces works of the flesh, in people and collectively in churches. Jesus said "flesh gives birth to flesh" (John 3:6), and Paul said "a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough" (1 Cor. 5:6).

It's everywhere ...

... and it's current. The integrated study materials -- sermon, class, home, connection group -- "The Road to Redemption," is a study based on Romans, systematically going through start to finish. The material makes a transition at week 11, after 10 weeks in Romans 1-11. Week 11 starts into Romans 12. The title for the week is "Family Theme Christian Living," and the section begins with this classic sentence:

"Having presented the doctrine of salvation, Paul began to explain how Christians are to live." 

We have it backward. We have flipped God's doctrine 180 degrees. The "plan of salvation" is not limited to justification and redemption. The plan of God is not the doctrine of salvation; the doctrine of salvation brings about and allows the crux of the plan of God -- which is transformation -- to occur. Salvation is the "One whom we are becoming" because we are on the path toward being like God.

Mountaineering, not molehilleering

Transformation to be like God is the real mountain. The importance of everything else, by comparison, is a field of molehills. Molehills are real; they are important; they are based on scripture; they have a function. Molehills are part of the larger plan of God -- the mountain. But, molehills are not the mountain.

"Go tell it on the mountain -- it's Jesus Christ we become."

151. OF MOUNTAINS AND MOLEHILLS:  [1] Making a Molehill into a Stumbling Block 

In a series of posts on this web site (#147 and #149), we have taken the somewhat unorthodox approach that the gospel is about God's fulfillment of His foreordained plan, made before the creation of the world, that we could be transformed into His likeness in true righteousness and holiness.  Justification, Redemption, Propitiation, Atonement, Reconciliation, etc. are actions out of the love of God through Jesus Christ which make it possible for humans to receive the Holy Spirit, the spiritual genes of God and the power to express their code into the character of Jesus Christ. This is Renewal, Transformation, Sanctification and Glorification -- all progressive salvation -- the spiritual evolution in this physical life to be completed in the next eternal life.  

Christians have confidently determined how the eternal plan of God is supposed to work and have called that accepted thinking -"the gospel."  But we should consider how our thinking, interpretations, and doctrines need to be constantly adjusted toward the centrality of the foreordained purpose of God and away from our anthropomorphic humanifications (okay, made it up) of how we perceive ourselves in our Western Christian culture.  We have developed dogmas that are thought to implement the plan of God that are based more on 15th century doctrine of the Catholic Church, or on Reformation Movement corrective reactions to that doctrine, than they are on the true revelation through Christ found in the New Testament. 

Missing the mark when interpreting the message of Romans

In another series of blogs, we have talked specifically about the "customarily accepted" interpretation of the book of Romans, which analyzes the book by dividing it up into sections that are then conceptually organized by naming the different sections.  It has been accepted for centuries to consider that the different sections are somewhat complete in themselves -- Rom. 1-8 the Great Doctrines of Salvation; Rom. 9-11, Israel; Rom. 12-16 Rules for Living a Holy Life.  Classically, "the Gospel" or the "good news" has been -- you may be lost and condemned now (no "may" about it; you are!), but God still loves you anyway, and if you will just accept Jesus and do the other things we tell you to do, you can be redeemed and saved like we are.  Sound unkind to say it like that?   Not really, because it's also not the "good news."  You see, using the first 6 chapters of Romans as the basis for evangelism is about as much the "good news" as the Law was in the Old Testament.  Why do we think we have to first preach the message of condemnation?  If the "good news" is Jesus Saves, then the "best news" is why He did it -- so that we could be transformed into the righteousness and holiness of God.  Now, that is the gospel.  The gospel is seen in the life of the church as the body is being transformed into the fullness of the Lord Jesus Christ (Eph. 4:12-16). Without the evidence of transformation, the formula becomes:  Words - Deeds = Hypocrisy.  Read more details in "verily-my-page runneth-over" type abundance on the intheimageofthecreator web site.  

All this is introductory material to set up an illustration that appeared in the "The Oklahoman" newspaper, on Saturday, February 8, 2014, Section D, pages 1D & 3D.

"It's all Him."

On page 1D, the article title is, "Kevin Durant's humility, faith shine in NBA spotlight."  Devin Durant plays the forward position with the Oklahoma City Thunder basketball team and is one of, if not the, best player(s) in the NBA right now.  He is a youthful player who is only getting better, and he is a "I'm not ashamed of the gospel" Christian.  In an interview following the Thunder's second win over the Miami Heat (last year's NBA champions) on January 29.  The interview following the game between Durant and ESPN reporter Doris Burke went like this:  

Burke: "What goes into a streak like this to get you to the level that you've been at these last 12 games:?  What does into that, Kevin?"

Durant:  "God --that's all I can say.  Jesus Christ."

Burke:  (laughter)  "OK, thank you -- and you didn't have nothing to do with it?"

Durant:  "Nothing.  It's all Him."

Using the social media, a lot of people took righteous offense (as if on Kevin's behalf) over Burke's response to Kevin's declaration of faith and criticized Burke for her words and demeanor.  Durant chose the high road when asked about Burke's reaction, "Nothing at all. Nothing, really.  I really have nothing to say."  Later, Durant attributed his response to Burke's question to his growth as a believer.  "Life's about evolution, and I think I'm growing as a man and growing spiritually, of course. Just figuring things out a little bit more.  That's all it is -- just growing as a man and giving credit where it's due.  It's not about me."

Can we rephrase these statements into theological jargonese?  Kevin Durant said he was being transformed into the likeness of God (Rom. 12:2, Eph. 4:24, Col. 3:10, 2 Cor. 3:18), and the character of Jesus Christ was being shown in his behavior more and more.  And he praises God for that.  

Hey, can we get a big "A-men" on that?  That's the gospel message!

Pastors in some Oklahoma churches commented similarly.  "...he's growing in his relationship with Christ. It's evident in how he carries himself. You just see that, definitely, God is all over KD." (Scott Williams).  "As followers of Jesus Christ, we're called to honor and glorify Him in every area of our life.  Kevin Durant has been given a tremendous platform to do that. I just think he's been a tremendous ambassador for Christ." (Richard Stillwell).

Burke, who states she is a believer, herself, said she was just surprised by Kevin's answer.  All of the pastors in the article responded kindly about Burke, saying we should give her a break and find something else to get upset about.  "As Christians, we have a lot of things to have righteous anger about, and this just isn't one."

Can we note some things in this story?  

Kevin Durant didn't preach condemnation.  He didn't criticize or complain about any question or anything else.  He didn't call down or compare himself to anyone.  He just showed the character of Jesus Christ -- into Whom he is being transformed.  

The gospel doesn't start with condemnation.  If there's no condemnation in Christ, then let's don't preach condemnation.  The gospel is about transformation that people can see. 

Why the display of "righteous indignation" over Burke's response by social media-ites and not by Kevin Durant?  Is it possible that too many Christians have heard the message of condemnation so much, that response is their first reflex reaction?  Here is an opportunity to be thankful for Kevin's transforming response and to chalk up Burke's question as part of the transformation process of Doris Burke.  But, instead, by concentrating on a pre-programmed response of "gospel=condemnation," one can completely miss the power of the gospel for transformation -- in Kevin's testimony, in Burke's opportunity, in the person's own life, and, as a community, in the church.

Do we really teach condemnation as a preliminary necessity to the gospel instead of transformation being the gospel?  Has this been done so long that it has become an integral part of our preconceptions to be immediately applied to anything?  Are the youth in the church accepting the message of condemnation, or do they see hypocrisy because of the lack of transformation?  How appealing is that for a lifestyle they would choose for their future?

How has this been working for us?

A (regretfully) different type of example

It actually pains me to give the next example, but, impressively, it was on the same page as the article on Kevin Durant (page 3D) -- only a few inches away.  You just couldn't miss the contrast.

An evangelistic association of one of the most well-known and respected preachers of the past 50 years (include me in that admiration) published the answer to a question submitted by a reader.  The emphasis of this ministry has always been about the need to come to Christ for salvation.  Although non-denominational, the association's doctrinal ancestry is from a belief in The Fall and original sin -- the intrinsic rebellion and disobedience of man -- and the accompanying guilt and condemnation.  Decades ago, guilt and hell seemed to be a more convicting, response-evoking message than it is today.

The question:  "My boyfriend went to church with me the other day, and afterward he said he didn't like it very much because the preacher kept talking about our need for God's forgiveness.  He says he doesn't feel like such a terrible sinner.  How should I respond?"

The answer (abridged): You should be concerned about this because your boyfriend thinks he doesn't need God. How does he define sin -- only doing something big and terrible?  He is guilty of the sin of pride. Pray that your boyfriend will see the need for Christ.  You sure wouldn't want to marry a guy like that.  

[This is classic condemnation from the doctrine of original sin -- a condemnation which then sets up the need for escape. It's the "I know there's something wrong with you, so come clean and admit it" routine.  But, then, there was a glimmer of hope -- at the bottom of the answer paragraph, there is this sentence:]  

"Ask God also to help you be an example to him of God's love and purity and righteousness."

A-ha!  At the last!  Show him the gospel, as you are being transformed into the likeness of God, into true righteousness and holiness, and he will see the difference without some preacher having to toss a message of condemnation at his unworthy bad self.  But which is the primary message given in the above answer?  Can anyone see the difference in approach?  In one approach, the doctrine tries to convict the person of sin; in the other case, the Holy Spirit can convict the person because the Holy Spirit is working in the life of the believer for transformation and sanctification.  And, somehow, we think that it is the unbeliever who is being bad and rebellious when they balk at the "gospel" message of condemnation. 

In the title of this post, what is the mountain and what is the molehill?  The mountain is transformation - it is the "mount of transfiguration" for us to climb by the power of the Holy Spirit.  We do not stay and make camp -- three tabernacles -- to the Old Law, to condemnation by the Law, and to escape from condemnation through Christ.  These are not wrong concepts; they come from scripture.  But, without the glory of the transfiguration, they are incomplete, and compared to the mount of transfiguration, a doctrine of condemnation from original sin is like a molehill, but one that we trip over .  The escape from condemnation is not the gospel, but the resulting road of transfiguration into the likeness of God is the gospel. 

Sermons are preached about how the devil wants to steal our joy; the devil wants to take away our salvation; the devil wants to nullify our witness for Christ; the devil is sneaky and sly and works in subtle ways through the back door.  A message of condemnation goes a long way into doing just that.  My father used to say that the devil was the most regular church-goer in the world; every Sunday the devil is sitting in the pew, wanting to mess something up.  The devil sits and waits, like Judas with the other disciples in the presence of Jesus.  

The phrase is "the devil's in the details."  Is it possible that "the devil's in the doctrine?"  Yes, even the one that we teach and defend.

Think about it. 

150. WHO WILL WORK TOGETHER TO CLIMB THE NARROW PATH TO THE SUMMIT?

Some people found themselves on a level ground area beneath a towering rugged mountain, having been placed there by an agency unknown to them.  They could look down to the valley below, so they knew that the place where they were starting was already at a significant altitude. but the mountain peak was so much higher that it was shrouded in the clouds.  A book explaining the history of this endeavor, the goals of the project, and the best methodology for accomplishing the goal of arriving at the final destination - the mountain peak. 

The book explained that the people were part of an ongoing expedition -- one that had begun down in the valley, where people originally started on the journey.  These people had prepared the way and blazed the trail up to the plateau, even with incomplete supplies and technology.  They did the best they could.  Their relatively primitive descriptions of their journeys had been collected in the book -- including their successes and mistakes -- written according to their understanding of the mission and their knowledge at the time. 

The book explained that the people would have to work together and combine their strengths and resources, or else the ascension to the mountain peak would be excessively challenging.  They were to keep their focus on the mission and not lose sight of the peak.  The methods of behavior and attitudes that would be most helpful were described in the book, as were the warnings concerning the less than appropriate behaviors and attitudes that were all too common in the past.  In fact, these poor attitudes and behaviors were a big reason why peoples of the past hadn't been able to climb higher -- they had just run out of oxygen.  They couldn't stand the stress and suffering of the altitude, the low oxygen tension, and the weather. 

But, now the people have been placed on a plateau higher than the valley; they benefited from the sacrifices of those who had gone before.  They not only started at a higher altitude, they also were given supplies, technology, and instructions that the people of the past did not have.  They were considered to be mature enough to use what had been given to them for the intended purpose.  They were given instructions on how to be maximally efficient in their endeavor, the history of peoples' past experiences, tanks of oxygen, boxes full of insulated suit materials, lighting materials, and trail guides to help them recognize landmarks along the way to ensure they are on the right path.  Because they will find there is not just one path from which to select.  Indeed, there are many paths of all different widths and surfaces.  But, there is only one narrow path that leads to the mountain peak.  As long as they choose the right path, they won't have to waste time concentrating on the other paths or fretting over where those paths might lead.

So, what happened? 

Various groups formed according to interests and specialties.

Parts of the body suit in different boxes.  Some groups went for the boxes that contained the insulated suit materials.  Opening the boxes revealed different parts of the suit were packed within different boxes.  One box contained nothing but the left pants leg of a suit with an abbreviation of "LL" stenciled on the outside.  Another box contained nothing but the right leg, "RL."  Another box contained the sleeve for the right arm, "RA," and another the left arm, "LA."  Another box contained the head cover, "HC," another the torso cover, "TC," another the glove for the right hand, "RH," and another for the left hand, "LH."  Within each box were instructions saying that all the box contents must be shared between groups or individuals in order to put together a complete body cover.  Some groups found the advantages of trading between right and left leg covers, so both groups would have two legs.  Other groups wouldn't trade anything and said their torso cover or head cover was all that mattered and that they were in better preparation than anyone else.  Some groups tried to put right arm covers all over their body, including their legs and head.  Instead of seeing how ridiculous they each looked, they made fun of one another, claiming their body parts were better than anyone else's.  They named their groups, "Group of the Torso," or "Group of the Left Arm," etc.  Even though they were incompletely covered, each of the groups, wearing their specially selected covering, started up the mountain.  When the freezing weather blew in and the exposed parts of their bodies began to suffer greatly, they blamed each other and felt most sorry for themselves.  How could the source of these insulated suits explain himself?  The people in the groups said they were entitled to better treatment than this.  The people made up the mountain trail only to the extent they were protected by insulated covering.  So, people camped along the trail and remained stationary because they could deal with the temperature.  Only those with proper clothing could proceed further.

What to do with an oxygen tank?  Some groups opened boxes containing oxygen tanks.  The instructions said that the oxygen inside the tanks was life-giving and powerful, but the tanks needed to be used only as directed.  Those who understood the directions were told to help others who didn't understand as well, so all could get the oxygen they needed.  The mission would be severely weakened if people dropped out from lack of oxygen.  That was what happened to the people of long ago.  Some groups just let their oxygen tanks sit around unused, because they claimed the tanks were empty and didn't contain oxygen anymore.  Other groups opened the tanks frivolously and breathed oxygen while dancing around and making strange sounds and falling on the ground.  Other groups hoarded all the oxygen tanks they could find.  Only a few people used their oxygen tanks correctly, while the others complained and made fun of how everyone else was using their tanks.  When people started up the mountain and when the atmospheric oxygen tension fell at higher altitude, people hyperventilated and fell to the ground in weakness.  Some had tossed their oxygen tanks before they even started to climb, saying the tanks were never filled; some had wasted the oxygen in their tanks; some had buried their tanks so others couldn't find them.  People made it along the trail to the altitude where the oxygen tension fell, but without oxygen, they had to stop and camp.   There they argued over who was to blame for the oxygen shortage. Only those with properly functioning and maintained oxygen tanks could sustain the energy needed to proceed up the trail. 

Using lights and solar powered batteries.  Some groups opened boxes full of lights of various sizes and color emission.  There were LED lights powered by batteries that could be recharged using solar generated energy.  The lights would deplete the batteries if used continually, but the instructions explained how to conserve the batteries and to recharge them.  But some people took the batteries to power their amplifier systems so the sound of their voice could be increased.  They were important, and what they said was important, so it had to be broadcast as loudly as possible.  That took a lot of battery power.  Some people used batteries to power up their guitars and electronic keyboards so they could play and he heard in public performances.  Other people used the lights and batteries to showcase the inside of buildings and create a disco type environment so people would come in and hear the rest of the amplified battery-consuming music and voice sound equipment.  They complained when the battery charge ran low because they didn't want to take the time to recharge their batteries.  All of these people used their lights and batteries in the encampment on the plateau, as they settled in to live and do their thing -- that thing to which they said they had been called to do.  But that calling came from someone else who earlier had made a learned study of the environment and had expressed an opinion that had become traditionally accepted.  Note that it did not from out of the instruction manual, although the tradition referred to the manual on occasion.  Some people read the instructions and used the lights and batteries for their intended purpose -- to shine light in areas of darkness when traveling along the narrow path.  Everyone else used their batteries on activities that related to and glorified themselves.

Problems interpreting the instruction manual--

[1] Importance and relevance of history to the mission.  Part of the instruction manual described a history of events when the mission first started down in the valley.  It was not clear if the mission began thousands of years before or billions of years before the present time.  There were other stories in the historical record which were difficult to determine if they were figurative in representing a truth or literal word by word.  There was some consternation expressed between groups and some individuals over the interpretation of these stories and the time for everything to occur.  Some said all this needed to be understood before the mission up the mountain could be continued.  Other said that the mission to reach the summit was the top priority, irrespective of the interpretive details of the historical record.  Many people camped on the plateau to discuss and argue over these details.  Others continued on the mission to travel the narrow path and discussed the historical details as they traveled. 

[2] Physical, emotional, spiritual training to be mountain worthy.  Some people read the survival guide section in the manual and began to prepare themselves for the climb to the summit.  People jogged and did exercises to physically train themselves for higher altitude.  People gave attention to nutrition and consulted the manual concerning the difference between milk of the word and meat of the word.  They frequently met together and encouraged one another as they saw the day of departure coming.  They resolved any disagreements readily, because they didn't have time to waste on disputable matters.  Other people seemed to enjoy arguing with one another over who was right in their interpretation of the manual.  They would get angry and call each other names and labels and often wouldn't even be on speaking terms with anyone else.  These people didn't prepare much for travel, because they were too busy preparing for the next argument.

[3] Keeping eyes set on the goal.  The instruction manual clearly said that the goal of the mission was to travel toward the mountain summit.  Nothing should get in the way of that goal.  That goal was of prime importance and the goal was the reason they had been placed on the plateau and given all the supplies and technology in the first place.  Reaching the peak has been the goal since before the people first started in the valley.  But, somehow, all the problems at hand consumed a lot of attention, time, and energy.  People formed groups over their interpretations of the manual; people built up camps and dedicated themselves to their own comfort and security; people and groups competed with each other for limited or scarce resources.  This Brownian Movement disorder distracted people away from the mission of traveling to the peak.  Some even quoted sections of the manual about the primacy of the mission even while they constructed buildings for themselves around their traditional interpretations.  Other people freed themselves from these entanglements and set their eyes on the peak and traveled with perseverance toward the goal.
 

[4] Understanding the trail guide.  The instruction manual gave some ways to recognize the narrow path to the top of the mountain and to discern signs or markers confirming that one was continuing on the right path.  Those people on the narrow path would have a loving and helpful attitude toward one another; they would maintain unity of direction because they were all headed to the same goal.  As people travelled together, they would grow in the depth of knowledge and experience in right and mature thinking.  They would pay no attention to side trails that were large and wide, and they wouldn't waste time arguing about what might await someone who ventured down that wide path.  The destination of those paths didn't pertain to the people who were traveling the narrow path.

Some assembly required:  Organizing details to understand the predestined plan.  There were a great number of things that had to be coordinated in order to function well.  Many of the supplies needed to be shared; much of the equipment required technical expertise to operate.  People specialized in different tasks and worked together in a complementary way to get the whole body moving.  Those people who kept the goal of reaching the summit in view successfully maintained a different priority of mindset than those who started competing with each other for control and authority.  People who respected one another and worked together effectively got much more done than those who didn't -- instead, these people built camps for themselves and wrote articles that advertised their opinions.

Some groups set up schools to foster education.  One subject was mathematics.  freshman 101 addition and subtraction, sophomore 201 multiplication and division, junior 301 calculus, senior 401 differential equations.  Many students never advanced to math 301; calculus required much more mature thinking and a lot more homework and effort.  Oh, they passed math 201 just fine -- they were happy with where they were.  After all, get into the meaty stuff and one has to curtail the video games, playing in the bands, and eating casserole pot luck suppers.  Casserole meat is good enough.  So they just took the elementary preparatory courses over and over -- they just remained sophomores.  In other words, they never advanced to the upper level courses and never graduated.  They just recycled the elementary teachings.  Why?  Because that's what everyone else is doing.  No physicists, no engineers, no computer scientists, no architects -- really, no one who could think through complex matters.  Shall we serve the milk of the math or meat of the math?

The narrow path that leads to the summit-- Why will so few find it? 

Some people like to point out the incredibly low probability that the universe could have come about and all of life formed as we know it by just random acts of chance.  The odds against an explanation by chance are absurdly huge, but no physical evidence has been seen to indicate otherwise.  But what may appear as randomness from our retrospective view is certainty from God's prospective view of eternity, because God set His plan into motion at the beginning of matter and time.  God's plan that we should grow into His likeness began to be fulfilled at the moment creation started, and that process continues.

In similar fashion, the likelihood was extremely small that all the people on the plateau, using their natural power. could orient all the random vectors just right so that all were pointing in the direction of the narrow path up the mountain to the summit.  The only way they could do this was to know, understand, and follow the guidelines given in the operational manual - the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) -- better known as the Spiritual Operating Procedure.  To do this, a person had to place others higher in importance than themselves, give themselves in service to one another, help and meet one another's needs so that all could follow together the path laid out before them.  Firstly, they had to discern the narrow path from all the other more obvious paths, and, secondly, they had to prepare themselves so they could travel the path as a body of people - traveling with perseverance the path marked out before them to the summit.  

Think of all the oxygen tanks and insulated suits and all the other supplies and technology that had to be shared and set up just right in order to work.  What is the random probability that people would do all that just right -- in total humility, peace, love, unity, dedication, and a common goal utmost in importance?  About as probable as the universe coming together by random chance?

Christians can understand how improbable the universe could have been formed by random chance without God, but do they then turn around and operate out of the flesh as though they could accomplish everything themselves.

Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."  Matt. 19:26.

God has a plan, made before all this was started -- before the people in the valley came about, even before the valley came to exist.  God's plan was that His people would ascend to the summit of the mountain.  God's plan was that His people -- we are the people of God (1 Pet. 2:9-10) -- would grow to be like Him in true righteousness and holiness (E[h. 4:24).  In God's plan there is no randomness, there is certainty. 

Do not be deceived, my dear brothers and sisters.  Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.  He chose to give us birth through the work of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.  James 1:16-18

Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for.  By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.  Heb. 11:1-2

Why do so few find the narrow path?  Primarily it is because of the pride of self.
 
cogito ergo sum
 
"I think, therefore I am."  (Descartes)

This philosophical proposition by Descartes suggests the human mind is self-proving, but the logic is equivalent to a circular self-justification.  The people who stayed on the plateau and argued with one another were in a cycle of self-justification.  They may have talked about the SOP and quoted from it, but they justified themselves on their interpretations and organized their tribes around that basis. 

Those people who could look beyond themselves and see the eternal plan of God could see the narrow path.  People who could keep their eyes on Jesus as Lord could see the light of the path.  People who served and helped one another in love, peace, and unity could, by working together, persevered on the path.

Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me.  Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it.  But one thing I do:  Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.  All of us who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you.  Only let us live up to what we have already attained.  Phil. 3:12-16

 

149. REDEMPTION IS THE LAUNCH FOR THE ROAD TO RIGHTEOUSNESS

I used to say, "What's wrong with this picture?"  Perhaps it is better to say, "Why is this picture incomplete?"

Perhaps our approach to studying the book of Romans could be improved.  Studies of Romans should start in the middle of the book, not the beginning, and should consider Rom. 12:1-2 the focus of all other verses in the book -- those verses before and those that follow.  When this is not done, the continual recycling of isolated theological teachings found in Romans 1-11 does not lead the church into maturity or into its predestined role of demonstrating the manifold wisdom of God as seen in His foreordained plan (Eph 3:10).

What are some of the "isolated theological teachings" that our pulpits and educational materials continually recycle?  Some pretty heavy sounding stuff -- justification, depravity and sin, reconciliation, propitiation, judgment, wrath, and even righteousness by faith and redemption.  These are eternally important concepts, but only when they serve as the foundation for growing into maturity.  Continual recycling of the beginnings of saving faith and repentance instead of growing into the meat of the word is treated in Hebrews the same as falling away and crucifying Christ again. 

The section of verses from Heb. 5:11 to 6:12 is headed in the NIV as "Warming Against Falling Away."  The verses begin by saying the people needed a lot of instruction, but they hadn't handled well the information they had already received.  They kept recycling the simple, beginner, initial learner things instead of developing into the deeper things of God.  Constant training in righteousness found in the meat of the word produces and reinforces maturity.  What were the elementary teachings they kept recycling -- those foundational concepts of initial belief and acceptance of Christ -- those concepts upon which the church builds itself up in love.  But, having a barn-raising square-dance at a pot-luck casserole supper on the surface of the foundation in both a cappella and instrumental formats doesn't substitute for growing into the full knowledge of Christ.  We are not called to sing and make merry over what we already have; we are called to build upon what we have into the fullness of Christ.  "...leave the elementary teachings ... repentance from acts that lead to death, faith in God, instruction about baptism, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment." (Heb. 6:2).  Verse 4 associates people who recycle immature teachings with those who "fall away" and "... crucify the Son of God all over again, subjecting Him to public disgrace."   Oh, my!  We don't do that!  Just those heathen do that.  That's not what Hebrews 6 says.  Verses 7-9 says productive land will be blessed, but unproductive land will be burned.  Verse 11 says to "show diligence to the very end, in order to make your hope sure."  Verse 12 says, "We don't want you to become lazy, but to imitate those who through faith and patience inherit what has been promised."  ("The tense of "inherit" is present active participle -- "who through faith and patience are continually inheriting the promises."  It's not just inheriting the heavenly mansions prepared for us in eternity, it is an inheritance that has begun and continues in the now as we mature and are transformed into Christ). 

Elementary teachings may bring one to Christ to start the path to the glory of God, but they do not promote growing into maturity of love, peace and unity, of true righteousness and holiness, of the full knowledge and glory of Jesus Christ.  For decades, people have wanted to hear the "old gospel," the "old-time religion," the "message of salvation." "water baptism" over and over.  Needing to do something one has already done is less threatening than a message that builds a fire under the pew -- get off your fat cushion and start growing.  Hebrews 6 says that continuing to recycle elementary teachings produces a "falling away," and when that occurs, even the elementary teachings can look like deep spiritual concepts by comparison.

So, up for consideration is a claim that the church today spends too much time and effort recycling the immature elementary teachings of Christ at the expense of growing into maturity.  

Need an example? 

As just one illustration, let's use some current, conservative, soundly Bible-based, traditionally-interpreted study materials geared toward an integrated approach involving home study, connection groups, Sunday school, and sermons.  (This approach is one of the "in" things to do, now). 

The home study guide and the subject for Bible classes are titled, "The Road to Redemption."  The study is based on the first 14 chapters of Romans and includes topics such as depravity (Rom. 1:16-32), judgment (Rom. 2:1-29), trusting God's righteousness and not our own (Rom. 3), justification (Rom. 4), reconciliation (Rom. 5), freedom (choose wisely, Rom. 6), life in the Spirit (Rom. 8), evangelism (Rom. 10), Christian living (Rom. 12), submission (Rom. 13), and liberty (make the right choice, Rom. 14).  These lessons are based on scripture and have many good thoughts, although they are written from a denominational perspective that generally promotes the doctrine of the depravity of man, the redemption by Christ, so make the right choice, or else.  There's nothing overtly wrong with this -- it just presents a view that is incomplete -- thereby illustrating, even fulfilling, the statement of Paul in Romans that we have "fallen short of the glory of God." (Rom. 3:23). 

In our western logic, if someone wants to study a topic or read a book, they start at the beginning.  Right?  Some people start reading in the middle of a book (like I do) but these people are just weird (like I am).  This 'begin at the beginning' logic would suggest that a study of Romans should start at the salutation -- the first part of the book (Rom. 1:1).  This is where Paul's logic for the Romans begins.  He builds the logic up to the central point for the entire book, which is found in two verses.  These two verses are then explained and amplified in the remaining verses in Romans.  These two verses explain the "why" of the first 11 chapters and the "what" of the last 5 chapters.  These two verses are set up with a key transitional word that Paul frequently used -- "therefore."  -- as in "Listen up!  The reason I have told you all these things and have built this case in the first 11 chapters is in the next verses ..... in Romans 12:1-2." 

Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God -- this is your spiritual act of worship.  Do not confirm any longer to the pattern of the world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.  then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is -- his good, pleasing and perfect will.

 An incredible amount of theology is wrapped up in these two verses.  These verses give the reason behind the direction of the first 11 chapters and for the verses and chapters that follow.  In view of all these things God has done for us, including freeing us from having to offer animal sacrifices because of the perfect sacrifice of Jesus, continually offer your bodies in a lifetime of sacrifice of service to God, which is the New Testament worship.  Don't let the worldly pressures on the outside force you into a shape of their making, but be transformed from the inside by the expression of the spiritual genes of God placed within you, as you renew your mind from seeking the world to seeking God, and as you are changed into the character of Christ.  The more you are changed, the more you will gain a spiritual perspective and see God's will for you -- foreordained in His plan made before the world began.  Be conformed to the will of God, not the world.  Grow to be like God in true righteousness and holiness (Eph. 4:24).

We study Romans and try to understand the message that Paul intended for those Christians in Rome around AD60.  That's fine -- to try to understand a writing in the context of the reader who would have received it.  That may be a good process of exegesis, but it might not make for the best application.  We can take the principles intended for the Christians at Rome to help us understand the text, but our context for application may be different from theirs.  That doesn't mean Romans isn't relevant or important for us to understand, but it does mean that, in this case, it is better to start at the middle of the book.  Romans 12:1-2 contains the reason for writing the first 11 chapters -- everything points to these two verses.  When one divides Romans up into chapters or subjects and starts from the beginning in a stepwise fashion taking weeks and months, each subject is presented like a tidy little package, as if that subject stands by itself instead of pointing to something greater. 

Let's say we extract the doctrine of depravity out of the first two chapters of Romans -- we are all a bunch of natural scumbums and are up to nothing but evil -- without Jesus, we are a sick depraved bunch.  This approach of condemnation sets up a need for Jesus, which is the explanatory approach Paul used for the Romans, but it is not an approach that is the most useful for us.  Why do we need Jesus?  Jesus came and saved us from depravity?  That's nice -- but, why?  We are remiss if we don't ask the question, because Paul gives the answer in Rom. 12:1-2. 

What is judgment -- is that when we really need Jesus to protect us and shield us from the wrath of God?  The answer isn't relevant because it is the wrong question.  The spiritually mature are past worry about the wrath of God, at least for them; they have left that behind as milk of the word.  What about our righteousness vs. the righteousness of God?  The mature already understand that they have the righteousness of Christ imputed to them because of faith.  They have grown beyond that to more meat of the word thinking -- into growing into the true righteousness and holiness of God. 

What are justification and reconciliation?  These are both important concepts, but they are means to an end.  They allow us the freedom from the past so that we can grow to be like God in the future.  What shall we do with this?  Instead of growing into maturity, shall we just continue to study and reread materials about elementary teachings of Christ?  What is redemption and why did God do this for us?  So we can have what is described in Rom. 12:1-2. 

It was the plan of God, foreordained before the creation of the world, that we should grow to be like Him in true righteousness and holiness by the transformation into the character of Jesus as we renew our minds from the old man of sin to the new nature.  This is why we have been justified by the righteousness of Christ, why we have been reconciled to God by the sacrifice of Christ, and why we have been bought back from sin by the atonement of Christ.  These important theological subjects are not ends in themselves, but that is how it seems if one studies only the second chapter (or any other chapter) of Romans without knowing the direction to which it is pointing.

In one week's study, the materials give the old illustration of judgment and wrath and redemption being like a totally guilty person standing before a judge in a court of law with the prosecutor (Satan) throwing accusations and condemnations at them.  Then the defense attorney stands and shows the judge the nail pierced hands and says He has already paid the penalty for the sin.  So, the judge lets the guilty person go.  This illustration isn't wrong theologically, it just falls short of the glory of God.  (Which, btw, is the definition of sin.)  The judgment is not when we "will scarcely be saved" (i.e., barely escape the wrath of God, 1 Pet. 4:18).  It is not for us to barely make it by the sudden rescue of Jesus showing up at our court case; it is not something that we worry about as if we could make any difference in the outcome ourselves, anyway.  Judgment is for the world; judgment is for sin.  We do not fear judgment, we look forward to it, because that is when we are separated from the presence of sin into the full glory of God.  We have been justified by the blood of Christ; we have been assigned His righteousness by faith in Him; we have been reconciled to God through Christ.  It is important for Christians to understand these things have already happened so that we can be free from entanglements to grow and to be transformed into the glory of God through Jesus Christ.  We continue to receive the benefits from these expressions of the love of God, but we do not take them as ends in themselves, but as means to the end.  The intercession of Jesus as our defense attorney has already occurred so we can move on to Rom. 12:1-2. 

Why is this such a big deal?  Because salvation is not just the past; salvation is not the same as justification or reconciliation.  These are involved, but so is sanctification, transformation, and renewal into the likeness of God, with ever increasing glory (2 Cor. 3:18).  Justification and reconciliation and forgiveness are the way we get on the narrow path to God -- they are not the path, themselves. 

We have said that Hebrews 6:1-3 talks about leaving the elementary teachings of Christ and growing into maturity.  The elementary teachings given as illustrations are saving faith, repentance of acts leading to death, baptisms, laying on of hands, and hell -- all subjects taught to get us on the road to maturity -- not things to continually recycle over and over.  But that's what we do when we use teaching materials that treat justification and redemption as ends in themselves rather than the beginning toward the end.  This approach reveals that one does not understand the absolute priority of the plan of God -- that we should grow to be like God.  The problem is made worse by the plethora of Bible study materials that do this.  It almost seems counter-cultural, even iconoclastic, to suggest these materials miss the mark.

The last page of the printed material is titled "The Road to Redemption."  The page speaks of our need to drop the burden of sin from our back before we can take the path toward redemption, like the story in John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress.  The reader is encouraged to admit they are a sinner, believe, confess, make Jesus the Lord, and let the load fall away.  Nice for a Billy Graham crusade, but for the Christian growing into maturity, because these are elementary teachings from the milk of the word. 

The last sentence on the page reads, "Now for the rest of the journey ....."  The whole page, essentially the entire three month's study, is about the road to redemption which, for the Christian growing into maturity, has already occurred so that we can do what is relegated to the last sentence on the page.  Do we even understand what "the rest of the journey" refers to?  It is what the foreordained plan of God, set before the creation of the world, is all about.  Redemption has occurred so we can travel the road to the glory of God.  If the materials are aimed to maturing Christians, the words in the booklet and the words in the last sentence need to be reversed.  Spend time on justification, debauchery, redemption, etc. only as needed to set up the 99% of the lesson materials -- growing into the maturity of the full knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.  The alternative is to recycle immaturity in the church, complete with immature behaviors like division, competition, arguing, judging, and other things that show the world the church is really no different.

All of Romans needs to be put into the context of 12:1-2; otherwise one bears a heavy risk of continuing to recycle immature and elementary teachings of Christ instead of getting into the meat of the word.  It's not wrong; it's just incomplete.  Maybe that is wrong.

Targeting depravity 

"Rather than condemning what I do, why can't you just show me something better?  Is it because you can't do it, either?"

So, the doctrine of depravity is one approach used to bring a sinner into salvation.  "Hey, boy, wrath is stored up for the likes of you.  Don't you know how bad you are?  Well, let me tell you."  Is that the message of Romans?  Is this a story to be used like a straw man to set up the need for Jesus?  A lot of preachers seem to think so.  The western tradition in Christianity is to intellectually argue the value of Jesus and convince someone because that is the rational thing to do.  Where did that idea come from?  Paul's instructions to the established church regarding evangelism was not the same that Peter and Paul used in the book of Acts.  Preaching Jesus as the rescue from depravity's road to hell doesn't work well because that's not the message the scripture tells the church to use.  When Christians, individually, and collectively as the church, live the sacrificial life of Rom. 12:1-2 (explained in more specific detail in the remainder of Romans), the world recognizes something exists that is better than what they have -- because of the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace and because of the love of Jesus manifested between believers in the body of Christ.  Jesus said the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin (John 16:8), not the church preaching depravity. 

Centering on a doctrine of depravity and original sin used to set up the need for justification, forgiveness, reconciliation, and redemption by Christ does not help the church in either its evangelism or in its growth into the maturity of Christ (Eph. 4:12-16).  It turns the world off, because the world can see that most of the people in the church are not that different.  The church is not setting itself apart in its behavior because it is too busy recycling immature teachings instead of pursuing training in righteousness (Heb. 5:14).  The world needs to see the church growing into the fullness of Christ.  By comparing itself to the genuine model of the kingdom of God, the world can see its own depravity.  And, if the church can't show the sermon, why should the world listen to one?

Let's not recycle our immature elementary teachings so we can devote time and attention to maintaining the survival of our institutions.  Let us keep our eyes on Jesus and grow into maturity. 

"And God permitting, we will do so." (Heb. 6:3)