Worthless rotten sinners?

In Evangelical circles, we often hear we are worthless, suggesting we are unworthy of God's love. Is this true? It depends on what we mean.

If we were worthless, why would God send his Son - the Son who the Father holds in highest regard and of utmost value; the Son of his infinite love and affection - to set aside his infinite glory and take upon himself our just judgment? And to also assign to us his perfect faithfulness and righteousness?

The very fact that God the Father was willing to sacrifice someone of infinite worth (his only begotten Son) says something of our worth, does it not? God must have felt we were worth it or he wouldn't have gone to such radical measures to restore us to Himself.

Can we be of great worth and actually worth (worthy of) his love while completely undeserving of it at the same time? Are we splitting hairs? Let's see. 

We in no way deserve a restored relationship with God. We regularly tell God by our actions and attitude to go "pound sand." It should be abundantly clear there is nothing lovely or deserving about this. 

The necessity of grace (a gift) in itself says we can never do enough or be good enough to earn God's love and therefore we can and never will earn the right to participate in God's uninhibited and unfettered love. But His Son can! Without God's intervention and provision, we are toast.

It is not until we acknowledge and believe this (a matter of the heart, not our conduct) that we can receive and experience God's love. The depth to which we believe these things to be true is the degree and depth to which we will experience them to be true. 

But this is very different than saying we are unworthy or not worth God acting in love toward us and on our behalf. 

Are we actually worthy of God acting on our behalf? If so why? Is it because of something we have done? No! It has to do with who we are, and who God has made us to be. This has nothing to do with what we do for or by ourselves.

Why are we of such great value to God? Because we are like God. We are God's image-bearers, by God's own doing and therefore highly ¹valued by God. Would not God value His image in us? We, after all, are the only created beings who are like God. We alone can receive God's love and return his love in a way (the same way the Father, Son, and Spirit give and receive it among themselves) that all the rest of his creation cannot. This brings him joy and the honor and glory he rightfully deserves, like nothing else in creation can. But this is God's doing, not ours. He made us this way, in his image, we didn't (click here for more discussion).

Psa 100:3  Know that the LORD, he is God! It is he who made us, and we are his; we are his people and the sheep of his pasture.

Our attempts to be in right standing with God through our independent efforts are worthless or worse yet are as "²filthy rags." But we are not worthless.

To become worthless, we had to have worth, to begin with. So what made us worthless? Our not conducting ourselves as the image-bearers God created us to be i.e. not living to and for God's glory and honor and loving Him with everything we are and have as we were designed to.

Rom 3:12  All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; (why?---->) no one does good, not even one."

Is being in God's image enough? 

Being in God's image alone, however, is inadequate to restore us back to God because we rebelled and rejected his design for us and our original status. Being in His image means we have the capacity to love and honor God as He rightly deserves, but this is not actual loving. Thus requiring God to restore us back to fellowship with him by doing for us what we could never do for ourselves, i.e. by removing the consequences of our not loving God as we ought and were designed to. In the place of our unrighteous distrust of God - along with all its consequences - He offers us his righteousness as a gift i.e. by and through grace.

So there is nothing we can do to earn God's love, ever. His love was and is totally undeserved yet we are absolutely worth it in God's eyes or He wouldn't have done it.

Some other links that look at different aspects of this are as follows. 

Our worth based on what?

The most valuable values us 

Lovable vs lovely

Hard wired for greatness

Created for glory

God's love is based on who or what?

Our worth, God's glory

Giving and receiving glory

Why in God's name does he love us?

__________________________________________________________________

¹Remember after God created everything he said it was good. After he created man he said it was very good. God values his creation and we are the pinnacle of that creation.

²How filthy? This refers to the rags used during a woman's menstrual cycle. Though some - i.e. the translators of the original language - try to candy-coat how repulsive our efforts to make ourselves righteous in God's eyes are, He does not. 

The different "flavors" of Christianity

I came to Christ my senior year in high school at a Nicky Cruz Crusade in 1971. Cruz came to Christ through David Wilkerson who was of a more charismatic persuasion. 

My first church was a fundamentalist Independent Baptist Church (the John Rice, Jack Hyles, Jack Van Impe legalistic variety...if you are old enough to remember those dudes). Before that I was unchurched. Neither of my folks were practicing faith of any kind, though my mom was raised Catholic and my dad grew up in the Church of Christ, but had walked away from the church as a young man and never returned. 

A year after I came to Christ, I went to Lynchburg Baptist College (now Liberty U) and then transferred to Columbia Bible College (now Columbia International U) after two years. I graduated from Columbia in 77. Columbia's theological roots were in the Keswick or "deeper life" movement. 

While at Columbia, I was exposed to a whole spectrum of views through the various students and faculty, from Reformed, to Arminian, to deeper life, to charismatic. I also started reading folks like Francis Schaeffer and CS Lewis and some works out of a more Reformed tradition. I eventually landed in an Orthodox Presbyterian Church after College for a couple of years -- which is on the far right theologically and the most conservative spectrum of Reformed churches. Solid doctrinally for the most part, but very little life. I found the label "the frozen chosen" to be appropriate. They were all "up in their heads" and somewhat oblivious in their approach to the mysteries of the Spirit and how to live in God's presence (or possibly it was more my lack of spiritual maturity, and I was not ready to hear whatever they offered in this area). I learned a ton theologically while there, however, and became more convinced and grounded in a Reformed theological outlook.

With my then-growing family (2 already born and one on the way) we moved to Massachusetts in 1982 to open a sales office for my business. While there we attended a Christian Reformed Church (Dutch Reformed) for about 4 years, then a Congregational Church for about 6 years eventually landing in a Baptist church for around 6 years (my wife had left our marriage and the Baptist church had a strong youth group which I attended for the benefit of my 4 kids, ages 12, 11, 9 and 7 at that time). 

After living in Massachusetts for approximately 16 years, I moved to the West Coast and attended an Evangelical Wesleyan Church for 4 years, eventually landing in a non-denominational Charismatic Church (co-pastored by 2 brothers) for 13 years, where I taught an adult bible class for 12 of those years.

I moved to Texas - since my daughter and her husband were considering starting their family (they have a son now) - and attending a Baptist church (in name only...which they keep under wraps) that operates more like a Presbyterian church in its form of government (e.g. a plurality of elders/pastors) and also in their eschatology, but also like a charismatic church in their style of worship.  

The main thing Baptist about them is that they practice adult Baptism. Otherwise, they even enjoy a good glass of wine or a beer - definitely not the kind of Baptist Church I used to attend. (They also do not emphasize the "cultural mandate" and exercising dominion over all aspects of culture, which is more common in Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed circles).

Why my church history? I have seen a lot of shapes and varieties of churches and the full theological spectrum within the church as a whole. I have observed what I feel are the good and not-so-strong sides of these various groups and drawn some conclusions along the way. The following are the differences I have seen. I am not suggesting I am right necessarily, only giving you my observations and understanding. In the following thoughts, I will discuss these and mainly compare and contrast the broader groups of Charismatic to non-Charismatic.

Charismatics

Charismatics tend to draw their sense of God's love through his present work and activity, such as experiences and manifestations of his love in and through his Spirit and various spiritual gifts. They are more experience and feeling-oriented in how they approach God, tending to look to experiences/manifestations as much as God's word, sometimes giving personal encounters with God more weight than scripture. Given the inclination of our fallen hearts, I have concluded this ¹can be and often is very shaky ground to stand on. They tend to be so focused on present experience that they can lose sight of the significance, importance, and completeness of God's past work in and through Christ and the vast depth and richness of that work for us in our day-to-day lives i.e. they tend to chase present experiences/manifestations of God instead of appreciating the rock-solid realities of God's presence due to Christ's work on our behalf, despite present circumstances, experiences, and manifestations or lack of them.

Other Evangelicals

On the other hand, non-charismatic types i.e. Calvinists, Reformed, Baptists, and non-charismatic evangelicals, tend to focus more on God's past work and Christ's future return, with minimum emphasis on his present work i.e. the necessity of ²operating "in the Spirit" and what that means exactly. They have a tendency to draw their sense of God's love through the depth and breadth of Christ's past work - if they do at all. 

My observation is many evangelicals within the non-charismatic part of the church know more about God - in their head - instead of having an ongoing, vital, daily personal relationship and experience of God. This was also true of me for a long time and is something I am constantly discovering more about. 

I find this is where Charismatics are stronger than most other evangelical churches. They at least have some life in them and seek to operate in the Spirit, if not always as strongly grounded in God's word. The downside of this, however, is that Charismatics can confuse some subjective experiences as proof they know God, when their experience may have nothing to do with God. Non-Charismatics, on the other hand, are propositional or doctrine-oriented (even among those who do not consider themselves cessationists or recognize the validity of all the gifts and the various activities of the Spirit). In fact, non-charismatics are so focused on propositional truth in scripture that they confuse knowledge about God with knowing God. (I discuss this further here.) There is little emphasis on seeking God's presence or experiencing manifestations of his presence ²through His Spirit and what that looks like in our day-to-day walk with God. They are so focused on Christ's past work, they can lose sight of God's present ongoing work by His Spirit and what it means and looks like. This is especially true of those in reformed circles, from my experience. 

Both Christ's past work and the Spirit's present work are necessary means by which God shows his love and grace to us and through us. They are equally vital. I would also suggest that for us to experience the latter (the work of the Spirit) as God intends, we must be firmly grounded in the former (the work of Christ). I address this tension throughout the various posts on this blog. To focus primarily on one to the exclusion of the other is missing out on all the vital means by which God reveals himself to us, no matter which side you fall on. 

We cannot emphasize one to the point of minimizing the other or we will miss out on the full benefit of both and the vital connection between them. A key work of the Spirit is to reveal to us the things of Christ. And not just propositionally, but in the day-to-day experience and manifestation of his presence through the various gifts and other means of grace i.e. worship, prayer, meditation, etc. 

Now, in saying all of this, these differences are not absolute distinctions but tendencies. All groups for the most part would say they believe what the other groups emphasize, but from my experience and observation, there is a very definite distinction in practice, even if there is a verbal acknowledgment by each of the other's views and approaches.

I would also add that the last church I attended (Baptist in affiliation) was more "charismatic" than most, and the former charismatic church I was in was far more scripturally oriented than most, with a slight reformed leaning in eschatology, while Arminian in their soteriology. But even with these two more "centrist" churches, there is still a considerable difference between them when you look "under the hood" and see how they operate and what they emphasize. 

For the non-charismatic groups, seeking and knowing the work of the Spirit is vital and a key missing piece. We are under grace because of the past work of Christ. But to be under grace is also to operate in the presence of God by His Spirit. I touch on this more here.  

My last church emphasized the past work of Christ and minimized the present work of the Spirit, as is typical of most non-charismatic churches.

Where I have landed... at present

I have personally been heavily influenced by Jonathan Edwards (1703 - 1758 who was instrumental in the first Great Awakening during the 1730's and 40's) and those who have studied him, such as John Piper (a Baptist), Tim Keller (a Presbyterian), and Kyle Strobel, (a professor at Talbot Seminary - also the son of Lee Strobel, author of "A Case for Christ").

Strobel is considered an Edwards scholar and did his Ph.D. about his understanding of spiritual formation - often referred to as sanctification. Edwards is wordy and also uses the 1700s variety of English - not unlike King James type English minus the "thee's and thou's" etc - which makes him hard to read.  Strobel, however, wades through this and does an excellent job of distilling his work and bringing out key aspects of Edwards's understanding of God in a way we can understand. I highly recommend all his work. The book at this link is a good summary overview by Strobel of what Edwards addresses regarding "spiritual formation" or what most evangelicals call sanctification. 

I have also posted some main truths Edwards discusses, summarized by Strobel here. 

While Edwards (along with the others mentioned) is within the reformed wing of the church, Edwards understands the importance of operating in the presence of God and the role of both our affections and our reason. As some may be aware, he's written an entire treatise on "Religious Affections" in an attempt to address and assess the increase in emotional displays during the "Great Awakening" in the 1730s - e.g. folks loudly crying out to God for mercy, going into trances or convulsions, fainting, weeping sometimes for days, etc. Though he felt there were excesses and counterfeit displays of "the Spirit" he also believed much of this was the work of God. 

(by "religious" Edwards means spiritual, as we would use it today. Not the legalistic performance-based variety common within the Evangelical community today) 

Interestingly, Edwards stresses (correctly I believe) that Christ is the eternal Word of God i.e. the truth and light (knowledge) of God revealed in the flesh and the Spirit is the passion and love of God poured out on us, through which Christ is revealed and the grace of Christ's work is applied (for a further discussion on this click here). Or as Edwards also likes to say, Christ is the light of God and the Spirit is the heat of God. Both knowledge and affection are vital in experiencing all of who God is and offers according to Edwards. So Edwards would not fit well in either a Charismatic or a stereotypical Evangelical church today, or maybe, to say it more positively, he could possibly work well with either. 

The balance and conclusion

Our current walk with God and the presence of the Spirit are anchored in the past work of Christ i.e. the gospel of grace. Without that work and a clear grasp of grace, there wouldn't be our present walk with in and by the Spirit. Our present experience of God is based on a clear and full understanding of this past work.  The truer our understanding, the greater our faith and the stronger we will experience the presence of God through His Spirit and day-to-day walk with God right now, this moment. We are not to focus just on Christ's past work or our future hope of glory but on our present ongoing dependence on/faith in/walk with God. Our experience of God does not start and end with the past work of Christ but only begins there. This past work is the vital foundation for our ongoing participation in the ever-present love of the Father, Son, and Spirit. As scripture says, "the just shall live (present continuous action in the original Greek) by faith" and "If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit" (Gal 5:25) - it is worth noting the context of Galatians is a discussion of being under grace and not the law i.e. there is a direct tie into operating in the Spirit and being under grace. For a further discussion on how the Spirit and grace are connected, click here. 

God did what he did in the past so we might know Him and walk with him in joy and power in every present moment today for the glory of His name. 

___________________________________________________________________

¹Early on in his ministry, George Whitefield approached God in this way but later abandoned it after making a decision on "an impression from the Lord" that later proved to clearly not be His leading. 

²For a discussion on what I believe it means to operate in the Spirit, click here and here. 

For a discussion on being empowered by the Spirit, click here and here. 

Control… Our world disrupted

We do not like to have our world disrupted. We become very comfortable in how we go about things and relate to others because we settle into a pattern. Patterns are predictable. 

We like patterns because they give us an illusion of control over our world and do not require us to trust things or others we can't control. We *hate having to trust unless it's trusting ourselves.

However if a pattern is not healthy, but broken, it needs to be disrupted so it can be revealed to us and abandoned. If we do not address but allow this we will miss out on the riches of God's grace he wishes to extend to us in those particular areas of brokenness.

If we do, that area will become a place of healing and allow us to be more effective in ministering to others in those same areas.

A challenging and painful circumstance is often the primary means by which God accomplishes the above, especially those areas of deepest wound and brokenness we need freeing from the most.

_______________________________________________________

*We hate it because we hate pain. Anything we can do to minimize (control) pain and promote comfort or pleasure, we seek. 

#Disruption #Control #comfortable #thoughtsaboutGod #thotsaboutGod

Law and grace… Which is it?

We approach the law either as a means of performance (to save ourselves) or a means of guidance (grace).

With the former, we attempt to use the law as a means of earning God's acceptance and approval.

With the latter, if we are in Christ, we understand God's acceptance and approval are already secured for us in Christ, not through performance. We recognize the law is...

* God's loving guidance for us

* the best way to operate according to our design (how and why he made us)

* which leads to our bringing God the greatest honor/glory and

* reaching our maximum potential and fulfillment

* Having the greatest impact on others for God's glory

Our bringing the highest glory to God through our actions is operating to the maximum of our potential and fulfillment i.e., these (God's highest honor and our greatest potential) are not in opposition to each other but the flip side of the same coin, so to speak.

The Bible describes the above two dynamics (performance versus guidance) as operating either in the flesh or the Spirit; under the law or under grace. For more on this click here.

For a discussion on living by grace click here

For a discussion on why grace is always necessary, not just at conversion, click here.

For a discussion on the value and importance of the law, click here.

Liberal vs Conservative or vice-versa...you pick

The conservative/liberal debate is an interesting one and there are some real differences philosophically. 

The heart of the difference is the view of humanity's condition. 

Are we inherently ¹"good" or "bad?"  

If we are good and our problem is our environment/ circumstances then we need to fix these and our problems are solved. 

This view is more common among those with a liberal political leaning and is based on humanism.

If we are bad or corrupt from within, then our hearts must be fixed. Only then will the world get better. 

This is more common in conservative circles, though there are exceptions. However, also common with conservatives is the view that law alone is the primary solution to our problems vs a changed heart.

The real solution... a third way

Ultimately, receiving God's love first and sharing it to each other solves the world's woes. Expecting or looking to politicians or government to bring this about is not. 

The truth is liberals have the right idea but the wrong method, i.e. They recognize the need for love and compassion, often better than conservatives, but tend to count on government and politicians to bring it about through government-run social programs. 

However, corrupt men make up institutions, i.e. apart from God's grace, all institutions are corrupted by being run by men or women whose hearts are corrupt and alienated from their Creator. 

Corrupt institutions (including government) often pass and enforce corrupt laws that reinforce (even institutionalize) corrupt behavior. The solution to man's woes comes from outside us (i.e. God Himself) and addresses what is lacking within us. True and lasting change occurs from the inside out and not the other way around. 

Liberals usually don't recognize the extent of corruption in the hearts of individual men/women. They believe the greatest need for change is in our world/circumstances/institutions, not our hearts i.e. men and women are basically good. Therefore, politically, they are "program" driven and see the solution to the world's woes ultimately in man and the institutions he sets up. Create a program that will fix the broken circumstances/ environment. If it's not working, throw more money at it.  

But an issue with the conservative (as well as the liberal - they just do it in different ways) is the tendency to depend primarily on law (this can lead to a police state and dictatorship and loss of our freedom when taken to the extreme). Though law enforcement is valid and necessary, it does nothing to change the heart of man, nor is it intended to, it simply changes their behavior or removes it from society. This helps keep order, but doesn't get to the heart of the issue (no pun intended). It can only mete out consequences for destructive behavior. But this can lead to soul searching by the perpetrator, which could result in a change of heart. But this is not automatic and a separate topic. Only God can change hearts.  

Government and law enforcement have one primary role, to punish lawbreakers, not change hearts. (for a fuller discussion on this click here).

When men refuse to let their hearts be changed, law enforcement is necessary to prevent people from harming each other. The civil authorities are not in the heart-changing business but the morality enforcement business - i.e. law and order - for the safety of the public at large.   

The bottom line is all politicians tend to consider the solution lies with them/man/government. This goes for both sides of the political aisle.  

Government is not the solution. It has its role but not the bloated role it plays today (both sides practice big government though conservatives tend to preach against it while expanding it at the same time). 

What most don't realize is only 35 years before the American Revolution - which resulted in our Declaration of Independence as a country - we experienced the first Great Awakening as a nation. The people of this country at that time became considerably more aware and alive to our desperate condition spiritually and the need for the love of and for God and our fellow man. This was the soil out of which our "great American experiment" grew, resulting in the first and only government by and for the people.  

The point is our system only works best where men and women are self-governed most i.e. they have a strong sense of individual accountability to their Creator to love him with all their hearts, etc, and love their neighbor as themselves. This further indicates the solution does not lie in government but in people who fear God, starting with those who claim to know Christ and love God 2 Chronicles 7:14.  

This was the key to America's greatness, not our form of government. Our form of government was merely workable because of the spiritual orientation and moral integrity of the citizens. A spiritual orientation, the founders recognized and knew, was vital. This allowed them to set up a form of government with maximum freedom and minimal external restraints. When Benjamin Franklin (who wasn't known for his spiritual devotion) was asked what form of government we decided on, he said..."A Republic, if we can keep it." It is the best form we know of, but only if and when we are self-governed i.e. individual citizens have a high moral sense of accountability to their Creator and fellow citizens. This is also why the solution to our woes is a return to loving God and our neighbor, which is only possible when the hearts of individual men and women are made alive again to God and are moved by His love to live for God and love their neighbor. Once God's kingdom is eventually established on earth, there will be no need for these external restraints since all members will be guided and ruled by the love of God.    

Our form of government was originally intended to protect and preserve our "right" or freedom to pursue our Creator and other rights with minimal government interference. Most politicians advocate (especially the big-budget variety) for laws that are restrictive by taking away our freedom via increasing taxation, regulation, and enforcement.  Government produces nothing and can't grow money (though they try by printing it out of thin air). "We the people" and our individual talents and abilities (which are gifts from our Creator) are what drives the economy, not the government. 

In fact, our corrupt and abusive monetary system is a far bigger problem than most realize, yet no one ever talks about it (at least not in the mainstream news and not to the level of importance it deserves).  

The site below has a short two-minute video about this. This is the reality that NO one is talking about to any significant degree on EITHER side. (Ron Paul spoke of it often. His son, Rand, and even Trump have eluded to it).

²http://demonocracy.info/

The difference between conservatives and liberals is about HOW we divvy up the money, not that there is no real money. Though we have a currency, it's backed by nothing (it used to be backed by gold until Nixon cut its ties in 1971 when he ended the Bretton Woods Agreement). In fact, our "money" is now a debt instrument, the very opposite of an asset. In this way, both conservatives and liberals are exactly the same. They both operate under the pretense that we have an honest money system.  

Does the Bible have anything to say about honest money? Plenty. Here's only a sampling. 

There seems to be an indication that the Trump administration has some level of awareness of this. 

When our monetary system implodes (I believe it's a matter of when not if, unless we change it before then) there will be no money to do any of the things any politicians propose. We will be back to either bartering or a police state, depending on which way government goes and how the masses respond (or don't). Then no one will care about minimum wage or fighting terrorism or whatever you believe are the key issues. 

If we believe man is our solution, we are in for disappointment. Men can be a means of addressing the problem but our solution is and always has been God. We are learning more and more the hard way, exactly that. 

Should we put someone in office we think will do the best job? Absolutely, but we need to spend far more energy praying than focusing on who is in office or wringing our hands about whatever issue has us frazzled (issues such as abortion, are only symptoms and not the cause of our issues), if we wish to see the real solution and real change. Thankfully, at least Trump openly called us to acknowledge God, though some might question his sincerity.

To take a closer look at what made us great as a nation click here. 

For a discussion on what is the kingdom of God, click here. 

For a discussion on the dangers of globalism click here.

For a close look at the difference between true believers and cultural Christians, click here. 

For a closer look at what is the best "economic system" by which a country should operate, click here. 

_________________________________

¹The bible says we were originally made good with the capacity for great good but as long as we reject and remain disconnected from the source of life, love, and all things, we can do no real and lasting (eternal) good. And since we were made for eternity, that is where our primary focus must be if we are to be a healthy and stable society.

²When watching the video on this site, note the dollar amounts referenced on the bottom left side of the video. Obama raised the debt ceiling to 20 Trillion when in office (and this was not just an Obama thing. This has been going on for years by both parties, though Obama increased the debt the most and quickest of any President).