Last Thursday I wrote a post called Gospel Substitutes in which I began to outline the seven ways we falsely live out the gospel, per Lane & Tripp’s excellent book How People Change. I included two of the seven: Formalism (Volunteerism) and Legalism. I had hoped to get to the remaining five sooner, but a garage sale at home sucked up all my time this past Friday and Saturday, so here are the next three of the seven. I’ll post the final two later today.

3. Mysticism

Christine careens from emotional experience to emotional experience. She is constantly hunting for a spiritual high, a dynamic encounter with God. Because of this, she never stays with one church very long. She is more a consumer of experience than a committed member of the body of Christ. Yet in between the dynamic experiences, Christine’s faith often falls flat. She struggles with discouragement and often finds herself wondering if she is even a believer. Despite the excitement of powerful moments, Christine isn’t growing in faith and character.

Biblical faith is not stoic; true Christianity is dyed with all the colors of human emotion. But you cannot reduce the gospel to dynamic emotional experiences with God. As the Holy Spirit indwells us and the Word of God impacts us, most of the changes in our hearts and lives take place in the little moments of life. The danger of mysticism is that it can become more a pursuit of experience than a pursuit of Christ. It reduces the gospel to dynamic emotional and spiritual experiences.

It can be difficult to differentiate between our spiritual and emotional states. We feel discouraged, and therefore we think we are struggling spiritually. But the reality is that our spiritual state is entirely determined by Christ, and he does not change. We are in Christ by grace through faith. Our emotions change depending on the weather, our circumstances, or even our blood-sugar levels; Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

4. Activism

Shirley stands on the right-to-life picket line wondering why more Christians aren’t there. Of course, Shirley feels the same about the protests at the adult bookstore and her work on the coming local election. These causes define what it means to be a Christian. Her constant refrain is, ‘Stand up for what is right, wherever and whenever it is needed.’ There is something admirable about Shirley’s willingness to devote time, energy, and money to stand up for what is right.

But on closer examination, Shirley’s Christianity is more a defense of what’s right than a joyful pursuit of Christ. The focus of this kind of Christian activism is always on external evil. As a result, it can take on the form of a modern monasticism. The monastics essentially said, ‘There is an evil world out there, and the way to fight evil is to separate from it.’ But monasteries failed because they forgot to focus on the evil inside every monk who entered their walls!

Whenever you believe that the evil outside you is greater than the evil inside you, a heartfelt pursuit of Christ will be replaced by a zealous fighting of the ‘evil’ around you. A celebration of the grace that rescues you from your own sin will be replaced by a crusade to rescue the church from the ills of the surrounding culture. Christian maturity becomes defined as a willingness to defend right from wrong. The gospel is reduced to participation in Christian causes.

The trouble with activism is that we lose sight of the evil in our own hearts. We get so focused on the social evils of abortion or human trafficking that we forget about the sinful patterns of thinking, desiring, and remembering that lie deep within the recesses of our hearts. There are many worthy causes that Christians should get involved in, but participation in Christian causes is not the same thing as participation in the gospel. The gospel of Jesus Christ is first and always a gospel of the heart, setting about to transform you at the level of desire by the presence and power of the Holy Spirit.

5. Biblicism

John is a biblical and theological expert. His theological library includes rare, antique Christian volumes, and he is always seeking to buy first editions. John frequently uses phrases like ‘biblical worldview’, ‘theologically consistent’, and ‘thinking like a Christian.’ He loves the Bible (which is a very good thing), but there are things in John’s life that don’t seem to fit.

Despite his dedicated study of Christianity, John isn’t known for being like Christ. He has a reputation for being proud, critical, and intolerant of anyone who lacks his fine-grained understanding of the faith. John endlessly critiques his pastor’s sermons and unnerves Sunday school teachers when he enters the room.

In John’s Christianity, communion, dependency, and worship of Christ have been replaced by a drive to master the content of Scripture and systematic theology. John is a theological expert, but he is unable to live by the grace he can define with such technical precision. He has invested a great deal of time and energy mastering the Word, but he does not allow the Word to master him. In Biblicism, the gospel is reduced to a mastery of biblical content and theology.

I see nothing wrong with this one. Let’s just move on. …Okay, fine, this is wrong, too. Many Christians are tempted to master God’s Word and Theology in their minds. Heck, I have a Masters of Divinity degree! It’s one thing to master God’s Word in your mind, but it’s another thing altogether to be mastered by it in your heart. Ultimately, the Bible is a book that reads you. Treating the Scripture as mere information, however holy that information might be, is to sin against the revelation of God. The trajectory of Scripture is the gospel, and the gospel is not merely information or a story; it is a world recreating event that continues to act in and through God’s people today.

I’ll post the last two ways we falsely live out the gospel later today.

In their excellent book How People Change (which I’ve reviewed here), Timothy Lane & Paul Tripp make the point that Christians often fail to live out the gospel in their daily lives. This is because we suffer from three blindnesses: 1) Our identity as sinners; 2) The all-sufficient provision God has made for us in Jesus; 3) God’s processes of change. We are blind to these three crucial realities, and they create a gap in our understanding of the gospel. We inevitably seek to fill this gap with a gospel substitute.

If we do not live with a gospel-shaped, Christ-confident, and change-committed Christianity, that [gap] will get filled with other things. …The most dangerous pretensions are those that masquerade as true Christianity but are missing the identity-provision-process core of the gospel. They have their roots in the truth, but they are incomplete. The result is a Christianity that is mere externalism. Whenever we are missing the message of Christ’s indwelling work to progressively transform us, the [gap] will be filled by a Christian lifestyle that focuses more on externals than on the heart.

These gospel substitutes often look and feel like Christianity, but they are a perversion of it. “The lies that capture us as Christians usually seem to fit well within the borders of our Christianity.” We are often at a loss for how the gospel works in our lives because we are living one of these gospel substitutes, rather than the good news of Jesus Christ.

As sinners, we like to be at the center of the universe. We like being the ones who control the agenda. Yet the gospel makes it clear that the only way to really live is first to die, and that those who strive to live, end up dying as a result. When the gospel is reduced to a catalog of isms where I choose the one most attractive and comfortable for me, I can participate extensively in Christianity without much personal sacrifice, and with my self, unchallenged, at the center of it all.

Tripp & Lane list seven gospel substitutes that plague Christians. I’ll post two here and the other five in another post. Perhaps you’ll find that you have been living a gospel substitute rather than the true good news of Jesus.

1. Formalism (Volunteerism)

If you want to know the church calendar, just look at Jim’s schedule. Whatever the meeting or ministry, Jim is there, Bible in hand. He’s done his stint as a Sunday school teacher and regularly volunteers for short-term missions trips. He is faithful in giving and a willing volunteer when work needs to be done around the church. But Jim’s world and God’s world never meet. All of his church activities have little impact on his heart and how he lives his life.

God railed against the formalism of the Israelites (see Isa. 1), and Christ condemned the formalism of the Pharisees (see Matt. 23:23-28). Why? Because formalism allows me to retain control of my life, my time, and my agenda. Formalism is blind to the seriousness of my spiritual condition and my constant need for God’s grace to rescue me. Jim sees his church participation simply as one healthy aspect of a good life. He has no noticeable hunger for God’s help in any other area. For him, the gospel is reduced to participation in the meetings and ministries of the church.

Formalism is more than just staying busy for Jesus; it’s substituting church activity for Jesus himself. It seems innocent on the outside, but it’s a false way of making yourself look spiritual while keeping your heart safe from the power of Jesus. The gospel goes far beyond mere participation in various church ministries or committees.

2. Legalism

Sally is a walking list of dos and don’ts. She has a set of rules for everything. They are her way of evaluating herself and everyone around her. Her children live under the crushing weight of her legalism. To them, God is a harsh judge who places unreasonable standards on them and then condemns them when they can’t keep them. There is no joy in Sally’s home because there is no grace to be celebrated. Sally thinks that performing her list gives her standing with God. She has no appreciation for the grace given her in Christ Jesus.

Legalism completely misses the fact that no one can satisfy God’s requirements. While Sally rigidly keeps her rules, her pride, impatience, and judgmental spirit go untouched. Legalism ignores the depth of our inability to earn God’s favor. It forgets the need for our hearts to be transformed by God’s grace. Legalism is not just a reduction of the gospel, it is another gospel altogether (see Galatians), where salvation is earned by keeping the rules we have established.

Legalism is familiar to far too many of us. It is nothing more than the futile effort to live an externally moral life. It’s all about the things you don’t do. Legalists frown a lot. Like the authors said, it’s not simply a reduction of the gospel, it’s another gospel altogether.

Many people find certain parts of the Bible, particularly in the Old Testament, abhorrent for their description of violence. What kind of God would claim to be good and loving but then order the killing of hundreds of thousands of people? Such a God is not good at all, these folks conclude. And who can blame them?

In Deuteronomy 7 God commands the Israelites to invade Palestine and kill everyone that lives there. “When YHWH your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations…and when YHWH your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally.” What the heck, God?

This is a difficult statement for many. How can a loving God order a genocide? How can this be in the Bible? How does this square with what I know about God through Jesus Christ?

The answer to these difficult questions, I believe, goes beyond the fact that Israel had been promised that land by God or that war was inevitable in those days (and still is today). No, the answer is that God hates idolatry. Idolatry, the worship of gods who are not God, is a fundamental and vile betrayal of your relationship with the God who made you. Idolatry is the door by which sin, evil, and wickedness enter the world. The more idolatry, the more wickedness.

Why? Because of the nature of the gods we worship. These are gods that have no concern for humanity. The pagan myths bear this out. The ancient gods were like horrible, shallow, vindictive humans with divine powers. They were the worst of us. Idolatry is dehumanizing. Idolatry undoes all that God is trying to do in the world. The gods are fundamentally opposed to God.

Therefore, as far as God is concerned, it is better for you to die than to live as an idolator. To be an idol-worshipper is to invite wickedness into the world, and to undo the work of redemption that God is trying to accomplish. Deuteronomy 9 says this: “After YHWH your God has driven them out before you, do not say to yourself, ‘YHWH has brought me here to take possession of this land because of my righteousness.’ No, it is on account of the wickedness of these nations that YHWH is going to drive them out before you.” Their wickedness stems from their idolatry.

You may not bow down to idols of wood or stone, but you have functional gods in your heart that are not the true God. They are, in fact, the same gods the ancients worshipped, but we have depersonified them, turning them into abstract concepts: Fame, Money, Power, Sex. What a trick the Enlightenment has played on us! But we are idolators, all of us, and you would do well to examine the desires of your heart to discover your own functional gods.

The people living in Canaan were killed because they were idolators, and their idolatry led them into wickedness. Idolatry always leads us into wickedness. You will find yourself doing things you never imagined to pursue the idols of your heart: Money, Fame, Sex, Power. You will invite great wickedness into your world in the pursuit of your idols–so much wickedness, in fact, that if you were to recover your right mind, you would look back and confess that it would have been better for you to die than to live as an idolator.

What is the Church supposed to do? What is the mission of the Church? What are the tasks God has given her to accomplish? Why do churches exist? What is the point of going to church?

Have you ever asked those questions? Lots of Christians don’t have a compelling reason to go to church or a clear understanding of what the church’s mission is. Many people go to church simply because that’s what they’ve always done. For ministers, the Sunday-to-Sunday grind has a way of making us forget why the Church exists and what she is supposed to do.

Do you go to church? If so, do you know why your church exists? Do you have a clear sense of what your church does and why it’s so important? Do you see how you are a part of your church’s mission, and do you participate in achieving that mission?

Jesus gave the church a mission after his resurrection. It’s recorded in several places in the Gospels, but perhaps Matthew records it best: Go and make disciples of all nations… The mission of the Church is to make disciples of Jesus. So how’s your church doing with that? Is that the mission of your church? Is that what you’re becoming? Is that what you’re participating in?

The point of church is to make you a disciple of Jesus. Everything about church should be centered around Jesus. If he’s not at the center, it’s not a church, it’s a pagan temple. Everything the church does should be with the aim of making disciples, that is, preaching the gospel to those who haven’t heard it (evangelism), and helping those who have heard the gospel live it well (edification).

I’d love to hear how your church is doing. What are some creative ways that your church is making disciples? How have you been invited to participate in that process? What could your church do to more effectively evangelize nonChristians and edify Christians? Please leave a comment!

After the killing of Osama bin Laden, N.T. Wright, one of my heroes, offered up a scathing indictment of the operation and U.S. foreign policy, in general. He wrote about the self-serving nature of American Exceptionalism and compared us to a character in our cultural mythology, The Lone Ranger.

I love N.T. Wright, and I’ve learned more from reading his books than anyone else…but, and I say this reluctantly, I’m going to have to disagree with him. He concludes his article with this sentence:

And what has any of this to do with something most Americans also believe, that the God of ultimate justice and truth was fully and finally revealed in the crucified Jesus of Nazareth, who taught people to love their enemies, and warned that those who take the sword will perish by the sword?

First of all, not to get nitpicky, but I don’t think “the God of ultimate justice and truth was fully and finally revealed in the crucified Jesus of Nazareth.” The book of Revelation seems to indicate that the God of ultimate justice and truth will be fully and finally revealed at the wedding of Jesus and the Church. This will be when the Father himself comes and dwells among his people, thus fully and finally revealing himself directly to those who love and worship him.

What I really want to get to, though, is this business of loving your enemy. Jesus said, in Matthew 5:43-45a, “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love [agape] your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven.”

The relevant question in this discussion is this: Does Jesus’ command to Love Your Enemies apply to nation-states? To apply this to our current situation, does Jesus’ command obligate America, as a political entity, to love Osama bin Laden? And now we have another question: Does this command to love, by its nature, rule out physical punishment as a response to physical aggression? Does Jesus’ command impel America, again, as a political and national entity, to refrain from killing Osama bin Laden?

My answer to the first question is No, sort of. This command is found in the Sermon on the Mount, which Jesus delivered to his disciples, who were all first-century Jews living in Palestine under the occupation of the pagan, Gentile Romans. This particular period of Jewish history was a hotbed for revolutionary activity, and saw many would-be Messiahs take on Rome through violent means, and fail. These false Messiahs, belonging to a larger group called the Zealots, were trying to usher in the kingdom of God through violent force. As N.T. Wright says elsewhere, they were trying to achieve a military victory over the pagan Gentiles that would symbolize the theological victory of good over evil. Jesus’ command to Love Your Enemies was a direct assault on the Zealots’ way of ushering in the kingdom. In essence, Jesus is saying the kingdom of God comes about by laying down your life, not by taking up your sword.

It’s important to remember that Jesus is talking to his Jewish disciples, not to the Roman occupiers. The Jewish temptation was to create a sovereign political state and call that the kingdom of God. But the kingdom of God is neither political nor national (Hence, Jesus’ refusal to be crowned king in John 6); it is suprapolitical and transnational. The kingdom of God consists across and within the nations, and it goes far beyond politics.

The presence of the kingdom of God, however, does not make nation-states or governmental authorities obsolete. In fact, Revelation 21 seems to indicate that, even after the end, when God comes to fully and finally reveal himself by dwelling with his people, there are still other nations on the earth. Moreover, texts like Romans 13 indicate that God has ordained governmental powers for the sake of maintaining order and justice on earth.

There is nothing in the text of Matthew 5 to indicate that Love Your Enemies applies to nation-states or human governments. The word we translate enemies in Matthew 5:44 could just as easily (though more cumbersomely) be translated those who hate you. The relationship Jesus has in mind, as I see it, is interpersonal, not national. Return hate with love; that is the way of the kingdom of God. But because the kingdom of God is neither a political nor a national entity, this command does not apply in the same way to nation-states.

Let me put it this way: If someone were to strike me, I would turn my other cheek to them; but if that same person were to strike my child or wife (assuming this person is an adult male), I would open up a very particular can on them. Just as my primary obligation, in this instance, is to defend my wife and children, so the primary obligation of government leaders is to protect the citizens and residents of that particular country. Love Your Enemies is not a command that overrides all other commands and responsibilities. It is a part of the means by which we usher in the kingdom of God, but there are times when it can be taken to extremes and do precisely the opposite of what it was intended. Therefore, my answer to the second question above is a hearty No.

My friend, a police officer, was killed in the line of duty. His murderer was killed shortly thereafter in a firefight with other police officers. This was right. This was just.

Osama bin Laden masterminded a cowardly attack against unsuspecting civilians using proxy assassins, and then hid for 10 years in the rugged mountains of central Asia. He was apprehended and killed in a firefight with American military forces. This was right. This was just. In this instance, Jesus’ command to Love Your Enemies was superseded by the responsibilities of the President (these responsibilities, according to Romans 13, come from God) to protect America’s citizens and enact justice, in this case with the metaphorical sword.

This post has been long, I know, but I have tried to deal seriously with what N.T. Wright said we Americans haven’t dealt seriously in the death of OBL–Jesus’ command to Love Your Enemies.