IS GOD NOT INTERESTED IN MAKING BAD MEN GOOD?

Earlier today, I came across this quote from Leonard Ravenhill:

“Jesus did not come into the world to make bad men good. He came into the world to make dead men live!”

I don't know what to make of it. Can't both be true?

What exactly is wrong with the idea that God is interested in making bad people into good people? Especially when we consider that Jesus implied that one can only be truly good by being like God.

Is it not God's goal that we become good? That we become like Him?

It seems to me that a homeowner's process of demolition followed by a remodel would be a fitting metaphor for God's desire for humanity.

A general breaking down followed by rebuilding is seen all over the Bible:

• Baptism of Repentance followed by Baptism of the Holy Spirit
• Justification followed by Sanctification
• Forgiveness followed by living as the Image of God
• Cleaned Up followed by Faithful
• Old Ways Gone followed by New Life Begun
• Believe followed by Confess
• Death followed by Resurrection
• Grafted In followed by Producing Fruit
• Remove Heart of Stone followed by Giving a Heart of Flesh

It seems like "bad men becoming good" is God's general goal.

And "dead men becoming alive" is just one metaphor of the larger goal. 

RIGHT MEANS, WRONG END

In typical American Christianity, a person's forgiveness by God is seen as a means to an end.

And the end is his or her eternity in heaven. 

It's simple. 

Now, I would agree that God's forgiveness should be understood as a means, but time and again, the Scriptures make it clear that the end He has in mind is our righteousness.

We were created to function as God's image here on earth and I don't see anything in Scripture to indicate that He scrapped that original plan when humans through the sin wrench into he works.

It only meant that we all had to take the long way around.

For example, it's right there in one of the most famous Old Testament prophecies of a coming time when God's Spirit would dwell in God's people. Take a look at what is bookended by talk about getting people cleaned up in Ezekiel 36:

24 I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land. 25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. 28 You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God. 29And I will deliver you from all your uncleannesses. 

FAITH ALONE?

I continue to debate with my friend about Free Grace Theology - the extreme version of "once saved, always saved" which maintains that faith is mere mental assent to the proposition that Jesus died for your sins. And once that is established, you have a salvation that can never be taken away from you. Even if you spend the rest of your earthly life living like the devil, heaven is guaranteed by your single profession of faith. 

From what I can gather, one of the central tenets of Free Grace is a firm, clearcut distinction between justification and sanctification.

Justification, of course, comes first and is based on faith alone. It is your ticket to eternal life. "Just believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved."

Sanctification is a completely separate process where the believer now moves toward Christlikeness.

At least, preferably.

Not NECESSARILY, just preferably.

And if you think of it, if you believe in "once saved, always saved", sanctification can't be a requirement for a believer's salvation because sanctification in an ongoing process which obviously involves "works".

And works cannot be a part of salvation. 

Right? 

"We are saved by faith and not by works." Isn't this what we Protestants are taught?

But while Protestants are big on salvation by "faith alone", you know what is funny?

There is only ONE time in the entire Bible where you find the phrase "faith alone".

It is in James 2:24:

"You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."

Hmmmm. 

That's a bit problematic, isn't it?

[To be clear, I'm not implying Catholics are necessarily on the right path with their doctrines. I think both sides tend to make a lot of assumptions about the core of Christian faith and those assumptions are based on the accumulation of centuries of reactionary theology which has been alternatively skewed and then recovered.]

5 DAYS ON SARDINES

It's Saturday, June 6, 2026.

I didn't write my sardine wrap up yesterday because I went to pick up Melissa at the airport at 11:30 pm instead. Can't do it all!

Here's the recap of my weight loss over 5 days of eating only sardines:

Beginning weight: 200

After 1 Day: 197

After 2 Days: 192.4

After 3 Days: 192

After 4 Days: 191.8

After 5 Days: 191.6

Obviously, my weight loss plateaued after a few days. And I'm honestly not sure what this means. 

I was definitely in a calorie deficit every day. A can of sardines has about 170 calories and I was eating 5 each day. That's only 850 calories. 

Day 5 was the roughest of the week. I got some weird hunger aches in the afternoon, but I just wasn't in the mood to crack open a tin. I guess my brain decided the hunger was more tolerable than another fish!

I was hoping to experience the rise in metabolism and clarity of thinking that some people report on a sardine fast. MAYBE I had a bit more energy and MAYBE my brain fog lifted a bit, but it's hard to tell because I just don't sleep all that well when Melissa is not here in the house. And when I don't sleep well, I lack energy and clarity. So, with one too many variables, it's hard to say anything definitive on that front.

All in all, I would do it again. In fact, I am tempted to do it again to see if my initial weight drops are comparable or if this week was a fluke.

But not anytime soon. 

END OF SARDINES DAY 4

Maybe I'm weird, but this week's sardine diet hasn't been all that tough. 

Here's what it's done to my weight so far:

Monday morning, before my first sardine: 200 lbs

Tuesday morning, after 1 full day: 197

Wednesday morning, after 2 days: 192.4

Thursday morning, after 3 days: 192

If this trajectory holds, that's a crazy amount of weight loss in a few days, even accounting for the fact that some portion of it is water - which will return when I go back to a normal diet on Saturday.

The truly amazing thing is that it's rapid weight loss that didn't come with the expense of hunger pains. Truly, this little experiment has not been physically uncomfortable in the least. 

And it's been economical! Most days I have consumed 5 cans of sardines - at a cost of $1.17 a can. 

And talk about quick and convenient! 

I find I don't linger over a can of sardines. 

No need for a lunch HOUR! 

END OF SARDINES DAY 3

 Nothing much to report after the third day of sardines, but for the sake of continuity, I will write something.

The most surprising thing was this morning's weigh-in. After beginning at 200, dropping to 197 after the first day, I dropped this morning to 192.4! But I was definitely dehydrated. 

But even if the more realistic number should have been, say, 194, that would still be pretty surprising. 

I should also note that I couldn't avoid briefly breaking my fast today. I had a lunch appointment already scheduled with a friend at a restaurant and I was not going to open a can of sardines in front of him and the customers seated around us.

I had a salad and two breadsticks instead. And it was all delicious. 

Otherwise, I think I had four cans of sardines total throughout the day. 

And hunger continues to be no problem. 

END OF SARDINES DAY 2

Nothing too profound to relate about the sardine fast. 

Today I had two cans for lunch and two for dinner. With hot sauce. 

Sunday morning, I weighed in at 201 pounds - after overeating at several graduation open houses. Recently I have been bouncing between 196 and 199 most mornings. 

After my first full day of nothing but sardines yesterday, this morning the scale said 197. 

Obviously, most of that has to be water weight. But that does indicate to me that the amount of sweets I put into my body is likely trapping a lot of water in inflammation. 

I will say this about the sardines - I didn't wake up hungry today. And that's saying something. For most of my adult years I have skipped breakfast. I'm just not interested. 

But on my last trip to Ghana, we were served a BIG breakfast every single morning. And in Ghanaian culture, it is rude to refuse food. By the time I returned home, I had established a breakfast habit. Now I was hungry every morning. 

This morning, though, no hunger at all. Maybe that's because sardines are high in protein. I think when your body gets enough protein, the cravings for junk food greatly diminish. 

And that's a good thing, because a sardine for breakfast doesn't sound all that appealing. 

FISHY

Yesterday afternoon, after worship and a couple of graduation parties, Melissa and Sarah started the long trip to Myrtle Beach. Melissa is helping drive Sarah's car there and then she will be flying back on Friday night.

Samuel, all of a sudden, has decided to move to go ahead and move to Bloomington. He leaves tomorrow.

It will just be me and the dog for the next few days.

And anytime I am alone, I take the opportunity to do some fasting. It cuts down on me fussing about what to cook for myself, and fasting tends to be easier when nobody else is around stocking the fridge with tempting food.

This time I thought I would try something a little different: a "sardine fast".

If the internet can be trusted - and when has it ever steered me wrong? - sardines are a type of "superfood".

Several folks on YouTube have experimented with 3 or more days of eating nothing but sardines and have found it beneficial in several ways. 

Because sardines have such low calories and high protein content, they provide a type of fast which doesn't result in excessive hunger.

That is, assuming you can stomach sardines - which I happen to thoroughly enjoy. 

Today I ate three cans for lunch and two for dinner. I also consumed a couple of mints, to battle my fish breath.

I will let you know the effects over this week, both positive and negative. Melissa doesn't come home until late Friday night, so I have five solid days to experiment. 

Should be interesting. 

NOT A BIG DEAL?

Pentecost doesn't get even the tiniest fraction of the attention which the incarnation gets.

Every year Christians spend an entire month (at least) in recognition of the moment in time when God took on human flesh and entered into human history. 

There are movies, songs, parties, food, decorations, and special traditions - all over the world!

But when it comes to recognizing the moment 33 years after that Babe was born, when the Holy Spirit entered into human history and ignited the ongoing Body of Christ, there's hardly a passing mention in most churches. 

Why is that?

How does the coming of the Holy Spirit rank against the coming of the Son? 

Was the Spirit's arrival in human history just not as important?

SOMETHING WAS MISSING

When Paul comes across 12 disciples in Ephesus during his third missionary journey, he asks them an unusual question: "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" (Acts 19:2)

And considering this was 20 to 25 years after Pentecost, their answer was shocking: "We have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit!"

They go on to explain to Paul that they were baptized into John's baptism - which would have been 25 to 30 years back! 

And then Paul explains that John was baptizing "with the baptism of repentance" and that he had pointed people toward believing in the One who was to come after him, i.e. Jesus.

So then these 12 guys are "baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus". Next, Paul lays his hands on them and they suddenly start speaking in tongues and prophesying!

And I am left with so many questions!

• How did these guys come across the baptism of John the Baptist - who was waist deep in the Jordan River - all the way from Ephesus, over 600 miles away? Were they personally baptized by John or did John's disciples take it upon themselves to spread his message of repentance, eventually reaching to Ephesus? Maybe these 12 WERE disciples of John on a lifelong evangelistic mission?
• 
  
• Are there two different types of baptism? If so, how EXACTLY are they distinguished from each other?
• 
  
• Were these 12 guys sort of their own little church? Without the Holy Spirit?

I can't even begin to speculate on the answers to any of these questions. There are too few details.

But one other question that comes to mind might warrant some conjecture:

• What prompted Paul to ask these guys whether they had received the Holy Spirit in the first place?

Did he see a lack of joy? Or power? 

An absence of victory over sin? 

Did they lack fruit? Or confidence? Or love?

Were there clues in the way they talked? In their priorities? Their values?

Was there a distance in their relationship with God?

Whatever the clues, something was missing, and Paul immediately recognized what it was: the Holy Spirit.

What has been your experience? Can YOU tell upon meeting a person whether or not he or she is filled with the Holy Spirit, entirely lacking the Holy Spirit, or somewhere in between?

A WONDERFULLY STRANGE WEDDING

I didn't fall out of my writing habit again... 

I simply took a few days off and worked to live in the moment as much as possible as Melissa, Sarah and I traveled to a wedding in Branson, Missouri for a few days.

This involved an 8-hour drive on Monday, a bit of sightseeing and the wedding on Tuesday, and then another 8-hour drive back on Wednesday. 

It was an excellent use of time, especially considering that Sarah is heading to Myrtle Beach for the next two months in just a couple of days, so we won't be getting to spend time with her this summer. 

And the sightseeing was fun, especially the Butterfly Palace.

But what really stood out was the wedding itself and the reception which followed.

It was a bit surreal, because the bride was a daughter of the missionary family living next door to us most of our time in Haiti and several of the guests were Haitians - my former students. 

And I wasn't prepared for that.

It was just so strange to be in this beautiful, glass event facility in the green countryside of Missouri with the "kids" from our life 6+ years ago when we lived and worked in the poorest, most chaotic country in this hemisphere. 

And they are all in their twenties and dressed to the nines!

And they are doing well. Praise God. 

The Lord works in mysterious ways, for certain!

WHAT MATTERS MOST

I once heard someone say that we talk most about the things that matter the least and we talk the least about the things that matter the most. 

And that is all too true. And so very sad.

As a high school English teacher, I often had to cover topics that, if I were totally honest, simply didn't matter - the sort of stuff that prompts some student to ask, "When are we ever going to use this in real life?"

The majority of the time, there wasn't a good answer to that question. 

I have been a teacher for about two decades at this point. Currently I teach English as a Second Language classes two nights a week to local immigrants AND I teach the Bible on Sunday mornings from the pulpit of Sardinia Baptist Church.

And recently I have started to think of myself also as a possible mentor to others ... on matters of life and faith. 

And it occurs to me that a mentor is just a teacher who generally works one-on-one and whose lessons deal only with what matters most about life - as particular needs arise. 

And, again, I say the Church needs more mentors.

SPEAKING IN TONGUES?

A long time ago - and we're talking about 35 years back - I visited a church that was very much into the Holy Spirit. 

At least, that was the impression I had. 

But what they were really into was speaking in tongues. AND they understood speaking in tongues to be THE litmus test proving a believer was filled with the Holy Spirit.

I didn't know my Bible all that well at the time. But now I know that such an idea finds no support in Scripture. 

I wanted desperately to have the experience of speaking in tongues. I didn't know anyone in the church and so I had nothing to lose by going forward at the end of the service to "receive the gift of tongues". 

Some folks prayed over me and, as they did, I was hoping that a jumble of unrecognized words would soon come pouring out of my mouth of their own volition. But after a few minutes of prayer, it became clear to me that if I was going to speak in tongues in that moment, it would require me faking it. 

I couldn't bring myself to do it. After all, I didn't want something fake - I wanted what was real.

Now I look back and wonder what I really hoped to experience. Upon reflection now as a 58-year-old lifelong believer, I think it was this: 

I wanted to lose myself completely. I didn't want to struggle against sin and uncertainty. I wanted to escape my own poor self-image. I wanted God to show up inside my brain, push me away from the steering wheel and take over. 

When read about how the Holy Spirit came over the crowd of disciples at Pentecost, as recorded in the opening of Acts 2, we tend to hyper fixate on the tongues of flame and the commotion of the disciples speaking in other languages. 

And if we do that, we miss what is really important about the story:

When the Spirit comes, He inspires the disciples to WITNESS about God's power and goodness and He miraculously enables them to communicate these things to the waiting world in a way that they can understand. 

Being filled with the Spirit doesn't necessarily result in speaking in unknown languages. It's about speaking and living as witnesses to the love of Jesus. 

LEADING INTO ALL TRUTH

Recently I listened to a podcast hosted by two former Christians. 

The question that prompted their "deconstruction" was kind of surprising to me. 

First, they pointed to Jesus's promise in John 16:13 - that, once sent by Jesus, the Spirit would lead them into "all truth". And then the two podcasters asked this question: 

"If the Spirit leads disciples into all truth, why are there 44,000 different Christian denominations in the world? Shouldn't all believers be unified if we each have access to ALL truth through the Spirit?"

Even if 44,000 isn't an accurate number (and who knows how one would count such a thing), it's undeniable that there is a lot of disagreement within the Body of Christ - and often over major doctrines. 

Besides, the question would stand even if there were only two denominations on the planet.

But here's the problem: The podcasters were making an assumption about the sort of "truth" being promised. Does it really seem likely that Jesus was promising that the Spirit would come bearing correct doctrine?

How might our reading of the promise change when we remember that Jesus had earlier said, "I am the way and the truth and the life"? (John 14:6)

What if "lead you into all truth" primarily means "make you more like Jesus"?

Being filled with the Spirit isn't about intellect. It's about heart. 

WHY GHOST?

The first time I gave any thought whatsoever to the Holy Spirit wasn't until a college Bible study. Only then did I realize that my home church never even mentioned the Spirit outside of the last line of the Doxology we sang every Sunday morning following the passing of the offering plates: "praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost". 

If I had given any thought to the matter as a child, it was only how "ghost" was a strange word to associate with God's Spirit!

If Google can be trusted, the Tyndale Bible was the first to translate the Greek pneuma hagion as "Holy Ghost". That was in 1526 and in that day the Old English gast, meaning spirit or soul, had morphed into ghost. 

So ghost originally had a much broader meaning, without any of today's baggage of being the spooky, ethereal, and shadowy soul of a dead human, out only to haunt the living. 

A truly unfortunate evolution of an important word!

Unfortunately, even though the word ghost changed drastically over the centuries, the descriptor of "Holy Ghost" for the Third Person of the Trinity continues to hang about the Church, thanks to old hymns and the King James Bible, which largely copied Tyndale's practice in this case.

MAYBE WORTH TRYING

Over Mother's Day weekend earlier this month, Melissa and I had all four kids together with us for the first time in about 7 months. It was wonderful.

Caleb came home from El Paso for a friend's wedding. Hannah decided last minute to make the drive from Myrtle Beach. Her arrival Saturday night was a surprise to Melissa, who was watering flowers in the backyard when Hannah walked through the gate. It made for a memorable scene of pure joy as Melissa screamed "NO WAY!" and ran toward Hannah, hands waving wildly over her head.

Just look at how blessed I am:

At some point over the weekend, as family members were hovering around the kitchen table, there was a discussion on some topic I don't even remember now. The only thing I DO remember was that one of my kids asked, "When are you going to start a podcast, Dad?" 

The question seemed half-joke and half-serious. And it was reinforced by a couple of the other three chiming in: "Yeah, why don't you?"

I'll tell you why: because every other person is doing a podcast these days. And very few of the amateurs are doing them well. And most of the small ones seem like a lot of effort to effectively shout into the void.

So that was my answer.

Until it got reframed in my mind yesterday morning. 

Yes, there are way too many podcasts. BUT, there aren't nearly enough mentors. 

So the question becomes, "Could a podcast function like a mentoring relationship, at least to some significant extent?"

And I'm thinking maybe it could. And maybe I will try. 

MENTOR SHORTAGE

In the last few years before he died, one of the ideas that Scott Adams sought to popularize was the existence and value of certain "Internet Dads". 

These were (mostly) men who use their online presence to disseminate fatherly wisdom rather than outrage. They are influencers, true, but only in the most positive directions. They aren't looking to get rich; they want to spread sanity and propagate critical thinking. 

Adams numbered himself among the Internet Dads. He certainly functioned as such for me. 

Not in a spiritual sense, though, since Adams was an atheist. (Although I would say he was as close to the Kingdom of God as an atheist can get.) Critical thinking and human psychology were his specialties, and he altered my perceptions of reality on a regular basis. 

I've always been a bit jealous of the relationship between the Apostle Paul and Timothy, Paul's "son in the faith". 

If I ever had a father in the faith, it was for a single brief year during college when an Intervarsity Christian Fellowship staff member, Tom Shepherd, took an interest in my budding spiritual life. 

And even now, at 58 years down the path, if I should come across a real-life mentor tomorrow, I would latch on and not let go. 

To be clear, I don't feel as though I were singled out for spiritual neglect - mentorship in the faith is a rare thing in the modern church. 

All of this is to say that the Lord seems to be fostering a genuine passion in me to be a mentor to others at this stage of my life. 

Recently I've taken great joy in some real-life mentoring situations, and it seems to me that in a world largely devoid of spiritual fathers and sons, mentoring can in fact be scalable - through the internet. 

The existing Internet Dads I know of all tend to focus on finances, entrepreneurship, politics and similar secular concerns.

Perhaps there is space for a spiritual Internet Dad. 

BACK IN THE SADDLE

Shout out to my cousin Jennifer who recently reminded me that I had not written on my blog since my birthday in April. 

I didn't intentionally stop writing here - I just got busy and tired and fell out of the habit. 

Plus, I didn't have a particular focus for my writing ever since I threw in the towel on my dissertation work at Christmas. The question which lingered in the aftermath was this: What was the point of my doctoral work if I never get to the degree?

I had started my studies under the conviction that it was God's will that I pursue a Doctor of Ministry through Wesley Biblical Seminary - especially when He arranged for it to be 100% free. 

But then at Christmas this year - four years into the process - I decided that I didn't care to spend hundreds of hours in a library in order to finish. Especially since I felt like I had gained much already AND I'm too old to waste time.

The question then became this: How do I take what I gained as-is and put it to good use for the Kingdom - without writing a formal dissertation?

I'm back at the computer tonight because I went for a 5 mile walk this morning. It was a neighborhood stroll that may turn out to be the most profitable walk of my life. 

The past 5 months of disjointed thoughts and priorities all came together into a much more cohesive picture. 

Cohesive enough that I now have no excuse to continue dragging my feet. 

I will gladly share more tomorrow after a good night's sleep. 

LIFE IS GOOD

Some reflections from this morning on being 58 years and 1 day old:

On some future birthday, I will think that 58 is young. 

I will say, "I remember when I turned 58. I started the day with 170 push-ups and then walked 4 miles in under an hour. And I weighed in at 198.6 pounds - not too bad for someone who is 6'3."

The number on the scale today reminded me that I graduated in 1986 and that this coming summer - if someone gets it planned - I will be attending my 40th high school reunion.

I would like to go to that reunion just to testify that my life has only gotten better and better since those high school days. 

God is good.

My marriage is better than ever. My kids are making me prouder with each passing day. 

Spiritually, I am more alive than ever and have a growing clarity about matters of faith and God's will. The Bible is more fascinating to me than ever.

Physically, I have no major complaints. There's not a single prescription drug in my medicine cabinet. 

When it comes to work, I am generally content. And if I there is any dissatisfaction, it is the useful type, pushing me to seek ways of gaining greater fulfillment in what I am currently doing. 

So, life is GOOD.

All things considered, I give my 50s two thumbs up thus far. 

P.S. Look - I even still have HAIR. I am blessed. 

ASKING HARD QUESTIONS

As pastor of Sardinia Baptist Church, I got a cold call today from a town two hours away - a missionary-to-be looking for financial support to get him and his family to the mission field.

I admired his gumption, but as we talked, I had more and more questions.

Let's call him Joe.

Joe needs to raise roughly $11,000 per month to put his family on the field. That's pretty steep!

And the mission field? 

Hawaii! 

Joe might have an easier time if God was calling him to the French Riviera! At least that would be overseas. 

Joe wants to plant churches there among the local Japanese community.

I asked, "Have you ever planted a church?" 

No.

Are you working to plant a church among the immigrant community where you live right now?

No, but I am very active in my home church.

Are there already churches among the Japanese living on Oahu? 

Yes.

Shouldn't they be the ones planting new churches? Why is an outsider better suited than a local Christian? Could the local believers be trained in church planting by you going on a short-term trip?

There were no good answers for these questions.

I was talking to Melissa over coffee after she got home from school. She had another question I hadn't even thought of:

Why doesn't Joe just take a job in Hawaii and plant a church on the side?

I am all for missions, of course, but my time in Haiti gave me a healthy skepticism when it comes to missionaries and their sending organizations - their competency, motivations, and methods. 

Sometimes missionaries end up on fields where they have no business. And lots of money is flushed down the drain. And damage done to God's Kingdom. 

All because nobody asked the hard questions. 

RIGHT WAY AROUND

We should always be suspicious whenever the church regularly uses language found nowhere in Scripture.

You can look up all the uses of the word "heaven" in the New Testament and not find it to ever be used as part of a phrase like "going to heaven". 

Not once.

You will find one verse which speaks of "ascending to heaven", though. 

It's John 3:13 - "No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man."

And maybe you don't want to go there anyway - at least not yet:

2 Peter 3:10-13 - "But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed. Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn! But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells."

The bad news is ... you aren't going to heaven when you die.

The good news is that heaven is coming to you. (Once everything gets wrapped up.)

Making sure you get this the right way around has more profound ramifications for your theology than you might first suspect.

"Many Christian traditions have seen the ultimate goal of life as being for us humans, somehow, to go and be with God, in heaven. But the great story the Bible tells, from Genesis to Revelation, is about God's purpose and promise to come and live with us." N.T. Wright, God's Homecoming, p.10

NOBODY ASKED ME

A pastor friend and I are engaged in a texting discussion over the nature of salvation. 

In our last exchange he asked:

If someone came to you and asked, "What must I do to be saved from hell, receive eternal life, and be declared righteous before God?" what would you tell them?

I have tried to give this some serious consideration.

But the more I thought about it, the more ridiculous the entire premise became.

I have never been asked this question in the past four decades in which I have taken my faith seriously, and I doubt I will ever hear it the rest of my life.

In fact, I doubt this question has EVER been legitimately asked - unprompted - in the past 2,000 years.

Just look at it:

"What must I do to be saved from hell, receive eternal life, and be declared righteous before God?"

Only people who are ALREADY Christians talk this way. 

No unbeliever asks this question.

Which prompts a question from me - and surely, I am not the first to ask it: 

Why are we promoting a gospel that answers a question nobody is asking? 

SALVATION BEGINS NOW

If a person’s motivation for “believing in” Jesus is avoiding the punishment of hell or gaining the reward of heaven, it’s no wonder that, either way, he or she might need reassurance repeatedly after the big "decision". How many times will they need to be told, "Don't worry, your place in paradise is secure"? 

A certain level of uncertainty is entirely understandable for those who conceive of salvation as belonging entirely to the future. After all, you have the rest of your life to sit and wonder and worry. 

But, biblically speaking, salvation starts now. And that's good news because condemnation had started long, long ago - the moment Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

We have all been born outside the Garden of Eden, outside of the direct presence of God. We are sad creatures: made for a particular purpose - to be the image of our Creator - but unable to achieve that purpose because we're bent inward. 

In this state, we are easily manipulated and deceived by the spiritual powers of this world, held in slavery to sin, and subject to death. 

The good news is that our Creator sent his only Son in human flesh to redeem humanity and the entire creation. To rescue us. To put us back on course. 

Ever since Jesus first started preaching the coming (re)establishment of God's Kingdom on earth, people have been challenged to leave behind their sad, but familiar, routine in the dominion of darkness in order to follow the new King into the light. 

And even though each new wannabe citizen of the Kingdom comes with a criminal record, the King has made it possible to wipe every slate clean. If you want in, there's no baggage holding you back. Inside the Kingdom is Life, the way it was meant to be.

One day, when the King descends to earth with all of Heaven, it will be absolutely perfect - no sadness, no sin, no more death. Until then, the citizens carry on the process of redeeming all of earth, in the King's name and through the power of his Spirit. It is exciting, challenging, and dangerous work. The world pushes back.

In Luke 19, Jesus tells Zaccheus, “Today (Now!) salvation has come to this house ... for the Son of Man came to seek and to save the (Previously!) lost.”

This proclamation was prompted when Zaccheus called Jesus "Lord" and then declared his intention to give half his wealth to the poor and to make restitution to anyone he had wronged. 

Nobody in that house - nor Zaccheus nor Jesus Himself - had any reason to doubt Zaccheus's salvation. 

He had already begun living it. 

THE STARTING PLACE

At this point in my life, if someone were to ask me "How can I be saved?", the first thing I would ask is “What do you mean by ‘saved’? Saved from what?”

If the hypothetical person answered, “Saved from hell” or “I want to know how to get to heaven”, then I would know there's a lot of weeding to do before there’s any planting. 

By and large, non-believers have picked up a lot of the same misconceptions held by Christians regarding what faith is all about.

But if that person expressed a desire to be saved from “self” or “sin” or “fear” or “meaninglessness” or "death", or if he or she expressed an interest in knowing their Creator or how to fulfil their purpose for being?

Those are much more important questions.

And a very different starting place.

REFRAMING THE STANDARD AMERICAN GOSPEL

I grew up hearing the standard American Evangelical gospel message, the one focused on individual salvation: we are justified through faith by Jesus’s death, burial and resurrection so that upon death, we can be admitted into heaven. And all that is only by God’s grace, to be sure. 

That was “the gospel”.

Along the way I was taught “The Romans Road”, I was shown diagrams of the cross bridging a gap between earth and heaven that I could never jump across, and I heard youth pastors and preachers “evangelize” by asking, “If you died tonight, do you know where you would go?”

I was told that before people could understand the “good news”, they would need to be made aware of the “bad news”: you are a sinner and you fall short of God’s perfect standard and there’s no way for you to earn your way into heaven. And all sinners go to hell when they die.

But, again, we would circle back around then to the good news: Jesus died for you. And if you believe, his perfect righteousness covers you so that when God looks at you, he doesn’t see your sin – he sees his Son's righteousness.

On the one hand, it made sense to me. And there were certainly Scripture verses to back up this approach to the good news. 

And it certainly had repetition on its side.

But I had questions. And they grew over time, especially as I read more of the Bible for myself. 

The turning point question for me was this one: If the gospel is roughly “Jesus died for you so that you can go to heaven”, then why does Matthew describe the beginning of Jesus’ ministry by saying he “went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM and healing every disease and every affliction among the people”? (The first appearance of the word “gospel” in the New Testament, Matt 4:23.) 

What is “the gospel of the Kingdom”? If that’s just a code word for heaven, then why does Jesus consistently speak about the Kingdom as if it entails godly behavior in the here and now? Why the constant emphasis on the Kingdom of God and its righteousness? Why do so many of his parables begin with “The Kingdom of God is like…”? 

Furthermore, Jesus spends three years preaching and hardly mentions his own upcoming death. And when he does, it is heavily coded. If his own death, burial and resurrection is THE main message his followers are supposed to receive and believe, why didn’t he preach THAT clearly and repeatedly? 

Even in John 3, where everyone goes to find Jesus’ clearest teaching about the gospel, there is one veiled reference to Jesus's death - to him being “lifted up” like Moses lifted the serpent in the desert. 

But most of the focus in John 3 is on Jesus being the “Christ” and the “Son of Man” and the working of the Spirit and how Jesus is the only one who has “descended from heaven”. And as far as “belief” goes, Jesus speaks of believing “in the NAME of the ONLY SON OF GOD”. 

And Jesus says that if we are going to see the Kingdom, we have to undergo a radical change - a new birth. 

He explains that the world is already condemned to perish, but he brings with him the possibility of “eternal life” for anyone who believes “in him”. Furthermore, Jesus describes himself as “the light” coming into a world where most people prefer hiding in the darkness. BUT “whoever DOES what is true, comes into the light so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.” (John 3:21)

And so the typical modern gospel finds a few loose proof texts there in John 3, but only at the expense of leaving out a whole lot of other material. 

Once it really sank into me that THE big question surrounding Jesus was whether or not he was the promised Messiah, the Christ, I realized that I had never really attempted to read the New Testament through 1st century eyes.

What did the crowds understand the controversy surrounding Jesus to be? What were the stakes?

Every time Jesus comments on any individual’s pistis/faith during his earthly ministry, it always has to do with whether or not the person believes Jesus is who he says he is: the Christ – God’s anointed King. 

And now it makes much more sense to me that the gospel is less about getting into heaven than it is about God’s anointed King having arrived to re-establish God’s reign on earth and to populate that Kingdom with people whom he has rescued from the dominion of darkness and brought into the Kingdom of Light. 

This Kingdom is bringing about the renewal of God’s creation, setting everything right that has gone wrong, defeating sin, death, and Satan. 

This Kingdom starts now and finds its fulfillment when the Christ returns, bringing a fully renewed heaven down to a fully renewed earth. Likewise, eternal life starts now (the abundant life of John 10:10) and finds its fulfillment inside the gates of that New Jerusalem after our own bodily resurrection. 

“Salvation” isn’t about stepping into heaven when we die. It is about being enabled – through the cleansing of Christ’s blood, and the power of the Holy Spirit – to become what we were created to be in the first place: the image of God. 

Again, this starts in the present, where God calls us his children and offers lots of ongoing grace as we seek first his Kingdom and his righteousness – and eventually, One Day, we will “be like Jesus because we will see him as he is”. 

In the end, I simply cannot conceive of what it would mean to truly “believe” that Jesus is the King of kings without bowing my knee to him. 

And not out of some forced sense of obligation, but because bending my knee to my Creator is the very thing I was created to do and to be. 

And it is the only thing that will ultimately make my joy complete, here and now AND in the future. 

WRONG QUESTION

Take a look at this paragraph from Free Grace advocate, Bob Wilkin, as he critiques other Christians who (according to him) don't have the same level of "assurance of salvation" as he has:

Most people witness like this: “I don’t know where I’m going when I die. If you have 5 minutes I can help you not know where you are going when you die.” With a message like that, is it any wonder that most people find it hard to witness? That isn’t good news, is it?*

Does any aspect of Wilkin's words strike you as off? (Besides the snarkiness.)

Did you notice that his quibble with the way most Christians approach "witnessing" is that they lack assurance themselves and so they pass along the same lack of confidence to their "converts"? 

BUT ...

It simply never occurs to him to question the validity or appropriateness of the central question: "Do you know where you are going when you die?"

In fact, he reinforces it.

If you know your Bible, you should be shocked that, within the modern church, "You can go to heaven when you die" is considered an adequate summary of the "good news". 

But it most certainly is considered to be just that.

This cannot be overstated: The idea that the gospel entails the rescue of individuals from earth to enjoy a future disembodied bliss in heaven far away misses out on so much of the meat of the Christian faith - and its true goal - that it doesn't just fall short as a summary of the true gospel, it absolutely distorts it.

Obscures it.

Hinders it. 

Stops it in its tracks.

Something big needs to change.

* What Is Free Grace Theology? - Grace Evangelical Society

TRUE FORGIVENESS

Psalm 103

12 as far as the east is from the west,
so far does he remove our transgressions from us.
13 As a father shows compassion to his children,
so the Lord shows compassion to those who fear him.
14 For he knows our frame;
he remembers that we are dust.

This is one of the most comforting texts in all of Scripture.

First, the promise that the forgiveness God offers us is utterly complete. There's no lingering resentment on His part.

Second, His forgiveness has a real effect on us. Our sins are not just papered over, but actually removed.

Third, there is the reminder of the Fatherly love of God. Imagine the God of the Universe showing you compassion - in light of your wrongdoing - as a Father interacting with a beloved child!

Fourth, His approach to us in our sins is tempered by His understanding of our frailty, the limitations imposed on us by our own lack of understanding, our selfishness, and our flesh bound existence. 

This doesn't mean we are let off the hook, but that in dealing with us, He remembers and takes into account what we're made of.

The entire psalm makes a great source for a Lenten meditation.  

GEORGE AND JESUS

I'm still working my way through the belief system of "Free Grace" theology. 

It conceives of faith as purely mental assent to propositional truths about Jesus: He is the Christ, the Son of God, whose death and resurrection made justification of sinful humans possible. 

Just belief. No repentance or actions needed. 

Don't believe me?

According to the Grace Evangelical Society - which is "the horse's mouth" when it comes to Free Grace theology:

"Faith in Christ is intellectual assent. Stripped of its pejorative connotation, “intellectual assent” is a good definition of what faith is.

"For example, do you believe that George Washington was the first President of the United States? If you do, then you know what faith is from a Biblical perspective.

"There is no commitment, no decision of the will, no turning from sins, and no works that are part of faith in Christ. If you are convinced or persuaded that what He promised is true, then you believe in Him. Faith is passive. It is simply taking Jesus at His word."

That's the Free Grace position on faith.

And if you "believe" in Jesus in this most basic way, your spot in heaven is secure.

Just ... wow.

I'm not sure how you square "intellectual assent" with the Bible's depiction of faith coming in different sizes:

• Faith can be LITTLE - Matt 8:26 “You of little faith,” Jesus replied, “why are you so afraid?” Then He got up and rebuked the winds and the sea, and it was perfectly calm.
• In fact, you can be WEAK in faith - Rom 14:1 As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions.
• But it can be INCREASED - Luke 17:5 The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!”
• You can make PROGRESS in faith - Phil 1:25 Convinced of this, I know that I will remain and continue with you all, for your progress and joy in the faith
• Because faith can GROW - 2 Thess 1:3 We ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers, as is right, because your faith is growing abundantly
• And in time become GREAT - Matt 15:28 Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly. 
• A person can even be FULL of faith - Acts 6:5 And what they said pleased the whole gathering, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit

Meanwhile, my belief that George Washington was our first president has remained rather static throughout my lifetime.

PROCLAIMING THE GOSPEL

A week ago, Matt McCormick, a friend from our family's years in Haiti, started writing on Substack.

I found myself resonating deeply with his second post: What Jesus Talked about Most.

Matt continues to work innovatively for development in Haiti through an organization called Xcelerant.  

In the article, he expresses frustration over the question most often asked by American Christians when they are considering whether or not to financially support his work: 

"Is Xcelerant a Gospel-centered organization, or just a humanitarian one?"

They ask because American Christians are more likely to give money to a ministry which is actively "spreading the gospel" than one "merely" helping the people Jesus came to set free!

Our definition of "gospel" is so skewed. 

Remember, Jesus came "proclaiming the gospel of the Kingdom"! (Matt 4:23) The Kingdom of God is where everything that is wrong with this world gets set right - in Jesus' name. And that is THE good news.

When we do God's will - feeding the hungry, healing the sick, setting free the captive - we ARE proclaiming the gospel. 

Matt took an interesting approach in his article. 

He has an engineering mind, so he looked at every one of the 2,024 New Testament verses recording the sayings of Jesus and looked for trends. In the end, Matt found that each verse fit into one of four broad categories:

• 56% — How to live in the Kingdom

• 15% — What the Kingdom is

• 15% — Who the King is

• 14% — Receiving or resisting the King

THIS is what Jesus spent his days talking about.

I pray that the American church will wake up and embrace the fullness of the gospel. Until then, we will be missing the vast majority of our opportunities to proclaim it. 

FAITH IS VISIBLE

A quick thought on faith:

If faith is mere intellectual assent to a propositional truth (like "Jesus died for my sins"), then how does one SEE faith?

Both Jesus and Paul saw faith:

Mark 2:5 And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”

Acts 14:9 He listened to Paul speaking. And Paul, looking intently at him and seeing that he had faith to be made well, 10 said in a loud voice, “Stand upright on your feet.” And he sprang up and began walking.

BELIEVE IN ... (FILL IN THE BLANK)

It's interesting to step back and take an overview of the word "faith/believe" in the New Testament.

If I am reading my sources correctly, the Greek word "pistis", the noun form translated most often as "faith" occurs 243 times in the New Testament. 

Coincidently, the verb form, "pisteuo", translated typically as "believe" also occurs 243 times. 

Both exist quite often without any object. But when they do have objects, there is quite a range.

Here's a sampling of the noun form, pistis/faith: 

The Bible speaks of faith...

• in God (Mark 11:22)
• toward God (Heb 6:1)
• in our Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 20:21)
• in him who justifies the ungodly (Romans 4:5)
• in the Son of God (Gal 2:20)
• in Christ Jesus (Col 1:4)
• in the truth (2 Thess 2:13)

The verb form, pisteuo/believe, has even more variety in its objects:

The Bible speaks of people believing...

• John the Baptist (Matt 21:32)
• in the gospel (Mark 1:15)
• that what Jesus says will come to pass (Mark 11:23)
• that you have received what you asked for in prayer (Mark 11:24)
• the reports about the risen Christ (Mark 16:14)
• Jesus's words (Luke 1:20)
• all that the prophets have spoken (Luke 24:25)
• in His name (John 1:12)
• the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken (John 2:22)
• in the Son (John 3:36)
• that "I am He" (John 8:24)
• in the Son of Man (John 9:35)
• the works Jesus performed (John 10:38)
• that "you are the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the world (John 11:27)
• that God sent Jesus (John 11:42)
• in the Light (John 12:36)
• that Jesus came from God (John 16:27)
• that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (John 20:31)
• Philip as he preached the good news about the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 8:12)
• in the Lord (Acts 9:42)
• in God (Acts 16:34)
• in Him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord (Rom 4:24)
• that God raised Jesus from the dead (Rom 10:9)
• that Jesus died and rose again (1 Thess 4:14)
• that Jesus is the Christ (1 John 5:1)
• in the name of the Son of God (1 John 5:13)

But most often, the Bible simply speaks of "believing in Jesus". 

It's funny that when you hear people try to define exactly what a person must "believe" in order to be saved, the answer is usually something like "You must believe that Jesus died for your sins and that He is the only way for you to be forgiven and to get to heaven".

But belief is never formulated exactly that way even once in any of these verses. 

Wouldn't you think that if faith were simply a mental assent to some propositional truth, the magic formula would be repeated throughout the New Testament, so that nobody would miss it?

When you look at the lists above, it seems to me that the emphasis is not at all on propositional truths, per se.

The emphasis is not on the object. The emphasis is on the verb itself.

Believing is a heart attitude. 

Believe = Trust. 

FILTHY RAGS?

Just about every time you listen to Christian YouTubers build a biblical case - either for their own particular theological paradigm or against someone else's - you can bet that proof texting will play a major role.

Broad doctrines are often built (or rejected) on the flimsiest of premises: one or two verses ripped out of context and read as woodenly as possible.

There are certain proof texts that just drive me mad these days - ones that are cited time and again but are NEVER examined in context.

For instance, I am sure that you have heard preachers point out that "our righteous acts are like filthy rags in God's sight". 

Isaiah 64:6 says so!

And then the preacher expands upon the verse, saying "God is so holy and you and I are so incredibly sinful that even when we try to do something good, God is simply disgusted by it."

I've heard this applied to non-believers and believers alike. 

Apparently, God is impossible to please. Try to do good and you only succeed in ticking Him off. 

But take an extra 30 seconds to look back even a single verse for context and then ask "Who is the 'our' in this verse?" and here's what you read:

5You come to the help of those who gladly do right,
who remember your ways.
But when we continued to sin against them,
you were angry.
How then can we be saved?
6All of us have become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
we all shrivel up like a leaf,
and like the wind our sins sweep us away.

So, who is the "we/our" in this context? 

God's people, but currently in rebellion against Him!

Picture a cheating husband, caught in the act, who tries to smooth things over by buying his wife a bouquet of roses. The wife has every reason to throw those flowers back in his face.

This does not indicate that the wife, in happier times, did not find a gift of roses to be absolutely delightful and romantic. 

"All of us have BECOME like one who is unclean" indicates clearly (to anyone who knows how to read) that this is not describing a perpetual state of God's displeasure with all humans, in all places, across all of history. 

Imagine the harm the misreading of this verse has caused over the years! Christian teachers should be ashamed.

SOME REQUESTS FOR MY FUNERAL

I overthink absolutely everything. 

And so I am sure my family will not be surprised after my death to find some very specific thoughts on how my funeral should be conducted. 

(Yes, I have thought through the fact that I will not be around to enforce my own desires and so I am already thinking about which of my children I should take aside and make swear an oath to uphold my wishes.)

So here is a list of my funeral requests in no particular order. And I reserve the right to add to these right up until the moment I expire: 

Find me the cheapest casket possible.

And I don't want people spending a bunch of money on flowers. What a waste. (And a hassle to deal with after the funeral.) I will certainly designate some specific charity people can give to in my memory - probably Mission Resource or Cap Haitien Christian School. They need the money more than the florist does.

Make sure there is a really great potluck at church afterward. (And say, "Steve would have really loved these deviled eggs!")

Have some guts and get up and say something nice about me. And, for that matter, feel free to criticize me if you want - what do I care? Get it off your chest.

No canned music, please. A piano will suffice. A guitarist would be better and a praise band better still. 

A time of dancing - like they do in Ghana - would be super cool, but I know this particular request will not likely fly. (I guess you can be allowed to nix at least one of these requests.) 

Let's do a few songs - a mix between some old hymns and more modern praise music. (You can be certain I will leave a list of suggestions for both.)

DO NOT sing "I'll Fly Away". It's got terrible theology of death and heaven. 

And that brings me to my most important request: I need someone to use the occasion of my death to preach a proper biblical theology of death, resurrection, and the eternal life to come. 

Make sure people know:

• I will not be carousing with those who have died before me. 
• I will not be saying "Hi" to any of your previously deceased loved ones for you. 
• I will not be watching over my own loved ones from heaven. That can be a creepy thought, anyway, so I am glad it's not reality.
• I will simply not be in heaven yet. (Nobody is.)
• I will not be appearing as a cardinal in anybody's front yard.
• I will not be an angel. I will not have wings.
• I will not be playing a harp. Or fishing. Or drinking beer. Or anything else.
• I will be resting and awaiting my resurrection body. The most prominent biblical metaphor is SLEEP. 

All this is hard to convey at anyone else's funeral, although I try to do so to one degree or another whenever I am called on to officiate. It just feels like you have to step very carefully. 

For some reason, people really cherish their little extra-biblical fantasies and superstitions about death. 

So if I can't fully preach Biblical concepts regarding death at other people's funerals, the least I can hope for is to find someone to do it at mine.

Any takers?

WHAT WAS BELIEF, BEFORE THE CROSS?

I keep thinking about those who want to reduce the gospel to "Just believe that Jesus died for your sins and you will be guaranteed a place in heaven when you die".

It seems to me that they have a major timeline issue. And it includes every single person who "believed" in Jesus before his death, burial and resurrection.

What exactly did those people "believe" before Good Friday rolled around?

Jesus simply wasn't walking around telling people that all that really mattered was that they believe he would die for their sins.

In fact, he spoke so little about the necessity of his own death that his disciples were caught completely off guard when it happened. 

So then, for one example, what message did the Samaritan woman take back to her village that caused many of the people to "believe in him"? (John 4:39)

John tells us her message: it wasn't "this guy is going to die for our sins" but, rather, "he told me all that I ever did". 

THIS was enough to motivate the villagers to go to Jesus and ask him to stick around for a couple of days. (Because it made her wonder if Jesus was the promised Messiah.)

And by the end of two days in the company of Jesus, they said to the woman, “It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world.” (v.42)

Now, if you grew up in the church, you have been conditioned to read "Savior of the world" as "the guy who can get you into heaven no matter what you've done". 

But that obviously wasn't what the Samaritans meant by that phrase.

To them, "Savior of the world" probably meant something more like "the single most important man to ever walk the face of the earth - the One sent by God to set all of creation right again". 

And if that is who you "believed" was standing in front of you, what would you DO?

I HEAR YOU, NEIL DIAMOND

The temperature was mild this morning for February and so I decided to take a walk. I was listening to some music on my phone as I left the house when I Am I Said by Neil Diamond started to play.

As the song ended, I found myself hitting the replay button - three times. I was trying to figure out a new connection to lyrics which had been familiar to me since my childhood:

L.A's fine, sun shines most of the time
And the feeling is laid back
Palm trees grow and rents are low
But you know I keep thinkin' about
Making my way back

Well I'm New York City born and raised
But nowadays, I'm lost between two shores
L.A.'s fine, but it ain't home
New York's home but it ain't mine no more

I finally realized that in my head I was hearing "L.A." as "Ghana" - with sunshine and palm trees - and New York City as Indiana, where I was "born and raised".

I love visiting Ghana, but the downside is that it reminds me of Haiti, where at least half of my heart remains to this day.

And Ghana is fine, "but it ain't home" and Indiana's home but, in some weird sense, "it ain't mine no more". 

Some days I am very conscious of the fact that I am still a missionary at heart.

And I would struggle to fully define what I mean by "missionary", but at the very least it seems to involve living life "lost between two shores", even after returning "home" nearly six years ago now. 

As I walked in the Indiana sunshine this morning, I asked myself, "Who did this to me?"

And you can guess how I answered...

"I Am", said I.  😉

And, honestly, I wouldn't want it any other way. 

METANARRATIVE

This could stand some revising and fine tuning, no doubt, but here's my present understanding of the Bible's metanarrative:

When God created humans, He created us to be in His presence and to function as His image. Genesis 1 is foundational for all considerations about the relationship between humans and God. The “Image of God” is not a characteristic – like a family resemblance – it is a ROLE. We were created to be His representatives here on earth: to be fruitful and rule as He would.

But humanity wanted to have the final say on determining what is good and evil, breaking our relationship with our loving Creator, the source of Life Itself, leaving us now to suffer the consequences: hardship and death and loss of God’s direct presence in our midst.

Unlike Calvinists, I don’t believe that humans are God-hating worms deserving to burn in hell eternally. I see in Scripture that God and humanity have the same enemies: Sin, Death, and Satan. I see human beings created to be Image-bearers, constantly falling into sin but deep-down knowing we were made for something more. 

So God initiates his redemption plan through a man, Abraham - who becomes a family - who becomes a people. God slowly draws nearer to humanity again, even as they resist or stray. He makes a covenant with His people, signaling that they will never have to worry about HIM being the side to break covenant. He gives them the Law in order that they may know His character and how He desires for them to live their lives – as His Image-bearers. The Law is good and necessary, but it ultimately produces more death. Sin takes advantage of the Law to exert even greater influence over humans. Half the time, God’s people ignored the Law in order to satisfy their rebellious hearts and the other half they (sort of) obeyed the Law, hoping to gain God’s approval. 

All the while, Death is hanging over every human’s head. 

God promises that one day He will send a new King to reestablish proper order. Sin and lawlessness cannot continue indefinitely. The Messiah will inaugurate the Kingdom of Light. All other competitors are collectively the kingdom of darkness. Within God’s Kingdom, the will of God will ultimately be done on earth as it is in Heaven. Willing humans will be restored to their original purpose: acting as God’s representatives on earth, doing good. This is what we were created for and it is the only way for us to be truly happy. 

(Still, we stubbornly and selfishly persist in rejecting the Fountain of Living Water and constantly dig our own wells, broken wells that can hold no water (Jeremiah 2:13).)

At the proper time, the Messiah shows up, preaching the “good news” of God’s Kingdom being established at long last on earth. The Messiah Himself, fully God and fully human, lives a sinless life, perfectly fulfilling the role of Image-bearer, doing the work of His Father. (In fact, He says doing His Father’s will is His food! It’s His joy. It’s what sustains Him. It’s His reason for being on earth. He never mentions doing it out of gratitude and He certainly isn’t attempting to gain the Father’s approval.) 

This King makes an astounding offer: You don’t have to die – you can have eternal life within this new Kingdom.

But there’s a problem. Every potential citizen of the Kingdom whom Jesus meets has one of two hang ups. Either they don’t believe He is the King and so they look down their noses at Him and reject His offer. Or they want to enter, but they have a criminal record as law breakers. 

The Messiah says, “Pick up your cross and follow Me – right into Death itself. Kill the old self with its sinful ways and I will raise you as a new creature with a clean slate AND My Spirit living in you.” 

And then He shows His followers where the cross leads. He lays down His life, allowing sinful human beings to spill His holy blood. And that blood, which is the Life of God Himself, becomes a brand-new covenant. It cleanses away the residue of sin and opens the way into God’s presence, making His followers into clean temples where God’s Spirit can live and guide and teach.

Once inside the Kingdom, do we have to worry about getting kicked out if we sin? No more than I need to worry that my wife will divorce me if I get lazy and refuse to mow the lawn any particular night. Marriage is a legal arrangement, yes, but it’s more than that: it is a relationship. The same is true with a Master and His disciple. With a King and His servant. If a citizen breaks the law of the Kingdom, he will suffer punishment – from a wrist slap to imprisonment – but he doesn’t get deported. 

Now in my framework as I’ve described it here, I don’t know how (or why!) to draw a line between believing in the King (“belief” as "mental assent") and pledging allegiance to the King ("belief" as “obedience”). After all, why would I want inside the Kingdom if I have no intention of living under that good King’s sovereignty? What could it possibly mean to say I “believe” He is a King if I don't simultaneously bow my knee to Him? 

Modern American Christianity seems to think the Kingdom of God (thought of almost exclusively as “The Kingdom of Heaven”, a future reality) is something akin to Disney Land – with endless entertainment and your own mansion. But that’s not at all what I see in Scripture – the Kingdom is much better than that. And less self-centered. 

I see the Kingdom as a present reality where we are to be occupied in doing our King’s will right here and right now, doing what we can to be a part of God’s present work: rescuing as many as possible from the dominion of darkness and setting things right wherever sin and Satan have sown chaos. The Kingdom is also a future place where there is no longer a threat of death or any suffering or pain or sadness. Instead, it is a place of absolute joy produced by being in God’s presence and finally finding the fulfillment of the very purpose of our existence. 

It is a return to Eden - which is exactly how the book of Revelation envisions it. 

And all of this is why it's so utterly insufficient - to the point of being misleading - to say that the "good news" is that you are a sinner in need of forgiveness and Jesus came and died so that one day you can go to heaven.

GRACE UPON GRACE

"Grace" is a central concept in most Christian traditions.

The Calvinists speak of "irresistible grace". By this they mean that God exercises His unmerited good will in the lives of His elect in order to bring them into an experience of salvation.

The Wesleyans speak of "prevenient grace". And by this they mean that God works in the lives of humans to wake them up to their need for God and His forgiveness, in preparation for salvation.

In church circles, the most common definition of the word "grace" is "unmerited favor".

And God's grace, in one way or another, is always closely associated with the salvation of human beings. 

All well and good.

I've noticed something, though, about the way Christians speak of grace: it always seems to be something that God exercises momentarily in the believer's life - when He welcomes him or her into the family in spite of obvious sinfulness. 

Less common is to hear a preacher highlight God's ongoing grace towards us. 

Yet, any deep relationship is maintained through the exercising of daily grace. We regularly exercise grace towards our own spouses, children, and friends. 

(While offering less grace to our enemies, co-workers, or strangers on the street.) 

When the Bible speaks of us being "justified by grace", why do we assume it came once, in the early stages of our relationship with God. 

John speaks of us all receiving "grace upon grace" (John 1:16).

Wouldn't a recognition of God's exercise of ongoing grace be enough to put an end to the whole assurance debate? God isn't any more likely to kick us out of the Kingdom for our sinful indiscretions than my wife is to divorce me for failing to load the dishwasher when she asked me to.

God sits on a "throne of grace" (Heb 4:16) and we are now living "not under law but under grace" (Rom 6:14).

Being on the receiving end of God's grace is an ongoing, daily reality for us, not a one-time initiation experience.