Monday, December 20, 2010

The Gospel of Guilt

I've been reading C.J. Mahaney's "Cross Centered Life" recently and it has raised some questions. In the book Mahaney lays out what he believes to be some major roadblocks in the way of Christians truly centering their life on God. He doesn't talk so much about lack of devotion or not leaving enough time for prayer and bible reading. He doesn't point to lust or hatred. He doesn't even bring in the verses in Romans and the like that talk of our tendency as humans to pervert God's truth, to trade God's grace for human wisdom. No, he talks about guilt, condemnation, and legalism. These are the things, in his opinion, that most quickly suck our spiritual lives dry and de-center us from God.

He goes on to talk about how we might be free of these things, but I wonder how they got there in the first place. I'm sure there's a theological answer that can solve everything systematically with certain truths and scriptures, but I guess I'm wondering more practically (if that's not a wrong distinction). How is it that Christians have come to the place where guilt and condemnation guide our thought patterns? How is it that we've missed the deep essence of the gospel, freedom, and instead remain shackled to our past and present failings? How is it that this is the issue above everything else? (And it is the issue. Find me a Christian book store that isn't covered with more self-help books than Oprah's home library.)

I found an inkling of a possibility of a chance of a hope of an answer yesterday in John Piper's "50 Reasons Jesus Came To Die." Piper finds that we have a problem truly understanding the picture of a suffering savior that stands at the center of our gospel. We make movies and write books about Jesus on the cross, but we don't truly understand the complexity of the situation and, therefore, we don't understand the gospel that is to set us free and show us God.

This is what he says: "Let us not trifle with God or trivialize his love. We will never stand in awe of being loved by God until we reckon with the seriousness of our sin and the justice of his wrath against us."

Unfortunately, I found the inkling of an answer in refutation of this idea. You see, I think that it's this very idea and all of the sociological formations that have stemmed from it that have stifled the faith of many Christians, good Christian men and women that love God and long to understand his ways. Maybe this is not the way that Piper meant it, but this idea seems to convey to me that we must truly, deeply understand our great offense to God before we can begin to experience his love and grace towards us. In other words, it is our recognition of sin that brings us to a place of humility by which we may understand and accept God's grace.

To me, this sounds a lot like a seed from which guilt and condemnation naturally sprout. What is positioned here as the cornerstone of Christian freedom, for a proper understanding of God's love, seems more like rich soil for a dismal understanding of our hopelessness and unsalvageable depravity. Not that God's wrath and our own sin should be dismissed, certainly not. We must come to understand man's depravity and God's righteousness for us to in any way grow in sanctification, in purity and truth. BUT, to ground Christian faith and love in this grave sense of depravity seems to be the wrong move.

This idea doesn't start in Piper's small book. It can't even be localized to any man, church, or culture, because it's everywhere. The idea pervades every hymnal, every theological structure, every version of the sinner's prayer, sunday school education from kids to adults, etc. And, I believe it is the extensiveness of this idea and its formulation as the "Gospel," the "path to salvation," that encapsulated us such that we cannot escape from the guilt and self-hatred of our hearts and minds.

In my own experience, and certainly in my experience with others, it has been the exact opposite of this idea. Oh, how beautiful the world became when I realized that God loves me, purposefully and specifically. It was as if everything before were shadows, empty reflections of some false doctrine. I began to drink deeply in God's grace, to find joy in the simple faith of song and prayer. God was once a distant king to which I payed homage. Enthroned on a high hill past my eye's view, he made decrees and I followed for fear or hope of his justice. Suddenly, I was the maiden of his desire. As Kierkagaard explains it, despite my lowly status and his infinity, I was his heart's sole longing. Then, as if it were nothing, I joyously began to trust this king. Fully and continuously I surrendered myself to his leadership. From this began a process of purity, of understanding my depravity and allowing God to work righteousness into my brokenness. To daily trade in the filthy rags of a lost identity for white robes of my true nature, the man that God had been forming from the beginning. Although I speak in emotional rather than theological terms, I fully believe that this should be the image of sanctification that we proffer (and desire) as Christians.

Is this not the true nature of the Gospel? That God has called us beloved, beautiful, glorious, holy. That from this understanding of our true identity as his beloved, we can begin to understand our depravity, this false nature we carry around. Is it not trust that gives way to the process of God's sanctification? Should we desire God's love and grace or our own purity and holiness before him as of first order? What if we, as a church, sought out God's love as the pearl of great price, as the treasure hidden in the field, as the bread of life? And what if this became the center of our journey rather than a more grounded understanding of the "facts of the case" that have so distanced us from grace and entrenched us in guilt? Certainly I say this with great fear. Oh how I do not want to lose sight of God's disdain for sin, of his wisdom and truth...but I fear it far less than I do the loss of my identity as his beloved.

I pray that we would be set free from guilt and condemnation, from the legalism that so easily dominates our minds, by allowing God to love us. By truly accepting his love and adoration and by grounding our identity firmly in that first and before all else. That we would allow God to romance us, allow him to pursue us instead of making that our responsibility. Instead of, "God I love you so much that I'm changing everything for you", let us first say "God I accept your love, I swoon to your romance, I'm captivated by your grace and I can't get enough." That we would focus on God's love first and our depravity second. How clear our lenses for viewing and understanding the mysterious truths of the Gospel might become if we truly began to realize, culturally, globally, our identity as the beloved of God.

1 comment:

  1. Thank you for the links. I'm a member of a SGM church in FL but wasn't aware of any blogs or internet resources like these. I will definitely begin following them.

    Also, I believe I may have misspoke making it sound like Mahaney supported my idea. Being that SGM and Mahaney are both strict adherents to Reform doctrine, I understand that they follow Piper in seeing a specific form of justification and sanctification.

    I should add to this, since I'm representing people by name, that I fully support and admire both Mahaney and Piper and value their opinions higher than my own in most cases.

    Thanks again for the links, Steve. Also, feel free to comment/critique any of the posts on this blog. I set this thing up so that I could work through many of the ideas I've been wrestling with and I'd love to get feedback whether "positive" or not.

    ReplyDelete