Why I'm Glad the Church Is Shrinking

 

I had not actually planned to write a post on this.  I assumed that someone, or rather plenty of someones, would be offering up their thoughts on the silver lining of this statistical cloud.  I was surprised to find that in most of the commentaries and articles I read no one was doing this, but that most of what I was hearing was lamenting or coping strategies.  In case you missed the report, the official number of Protestant Christians in America has dipped below 50% of the population for the first time "ever" (by which I take it to mean since the European settlers ran all the Native American pagans out. ;)  The general reaction to this news from most Christians seems to be a mix of despair, self-castigation for not doing a better job, warnings of impending doom, and calls to redouble our efforts at discipleship.  Though this loss of majority privilege might certainly provoke some Christians to examine ourselves and how we are answering the call of the Great Commission to make disciples (something we should've been doing without statistical provocation), I believe it is no reason to despair, but, if anything, to be glad.

First we need to understand what this statistical shift signifies.  Is what we are seeing a mass exodus of true believers from the church?  A large-scale apostasy?  I'd wager not.  The fact is, the statistics show that 48% of America still self-identifies as Protestant.  If that number doesn't seem outright laughable, you have a poor definition of what Protestant means.  Nowhere near even that many are.  It used to be (and for quite a few Americans still is) that to be born in the USA is to be a Protestant.   There was a time when you couldn't get a bank loan without membership at a church, or at the very least a synagogue.  (Did we really think that policy was bound to make sincere and deep Christians?)  Wikipedia defines a Protestant as a member in "any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth."  Do we really think that even close to 48% of the population of the country believe these things (with exception to the point about the pope ;)?  It would be wonderful, but such is not the case.

So what's happening is NOT a decline of real, Protestant believers, but a purging of nominal Christians.  This statistical decline depicts not the death of the church, but rather of Christendom: a society-wide structure based on some generic Christian values in which everyone considers themselves Christian by default, simply because they were born into the system.  But the reality is there are no default Christians!  You don't get to call yourself a Protestant just because you were born in America and hold some vaguely Christians understandings, the same way you don't get to call yourself a fish just because you were born in the bathtub and like to swim on vacation.  The issue is that in America, the default religion is Protestantism, the same way that in Italy it's Catholicism (88%) or in Ukraine it's Eastern Orthodoxy (around 70%).  But the truth is that in none of these countries does even a fraction of the population actually and sincerely believe in the teachings of its particular default religion.  That is, they are nominal - believers in name only.  So what is responsible for this trend in America?

One commentary on the new statistics from the linked article lays it out this way:

"'Part of what's going on here is that the stigma associated with not being part of any religious community has declined,' said John Green, a specialist in religion and politics at the University of Akron, who advised Pew on the survey. 'In some parts of the country, there is still a stigma. But overall, it's not the way it used to be.'"  

In other words, now that you don't need to be a member of a church to get a bank loan, the people who were in the church only for superficial reasons linked with Christendom are leaving.  Nominal Christians no longer have to keep up the pretense because the belief that to be a decent American means you must go to church on Sunday has all but disappeared.  What that inevitably means is that, while the numbers of people who call themselves Protestant may be declining, the number of real believers is not.  In fact, there are at least two reasons why this trend is positive.

First, this presents an exciting opportunity to share the Gospel.  There is practically no one harder to share the Gospel with than someone who thinks they already know it but doesn't; with someone who thinks they are already a Christian but they aren't.  At least when someone says they are not a Christian or believe in "nothing in particular", there is a possibility of an honest dialogue.  But it is often much harder to tell someone who thinks he's a Christian that he needs to become a Christian.  I would personally much rather have a conversation with someone who recognizes Christianity and the Gospel as something they don't currently believe and is willing to debate it with me than try to convince someone who is simply putting on the Christian show that they are not actually a Christian.  History bears out this sharp and honest distinction as beneficial.  It was the prostitutes and thieving tax collectors who came to Jesus, not the Pharisees who thought they were already good to go.  It was, ultimately and generally speaking, the Gentiles of places like Corinth that were more open to Paul's message than the population of Jerusalem (though there were certainly not a few of the Jewish people who came to faith as well.)  Even in our own days, the growth rate of the Evangelical church is highest in countries that are NOT part of the Christendom structure.  Of course, the residual problem in America is that many of even those who no longer affiliate with the Protestant church think they know what the Gospel is.  Therefore, the exodus of nominal Christians from the church is not a panacea to this problem, but at least they aren't lying to themselves anymore about believing it, and that's a step in the right direction. 

The second reason we should be glad for this change is that, ultimately, this trend will beautify the church.  If those who are not serious about faith in Christ, those who were Protestant in name only or were so out of a vague sense of patriotic affiliation leave the church, that means that the people who stay will be more and more those who truly love Jesus and want to worship Him with their lives.  Granted, there will still be plenty of nominal Christians in the church unless some kind of serious persecution begins, but nevertheless, the trend of the church being pruned of dead branches will ultimately lead to a greater vibrancy, attractiveness to those outside, and therefore fruitfulness.  Pruning might be painful, but it is a reason for hope, not for despair.  It is a condition of life, not a mark of death.  It seems to me the reason that many Christians begin to panic over these statistics is that we, in a stereotypical super-size mentality, often confuse quantity with quality and think that bigger numbers must necessarily mean the church is better off when this is very contradictory to the biblical picture.  In fact, the stated preference of God in Scripture is that people who come in vain would do better to stop pretending and just not come (Mal. 1:10 and Rev. 3:15-16 come to mind.) 

So though the pruning process might not be fun, might entail some real pain for churches and truly require us to adapt in order to be witnesses in a "post-Christian" society, the truth is that society was never "Christian" in the first place, only "Christianized" and that this change is ultimately not something to fear or cause despair, but to applaud, because ultimately it just means that people are finally getting honest with themselves and others and that's something we should all be able to agree is a good thing.

Review of Center Church by Tim Keller

I can't remember ever winning anything for free in my life.  I recently entered a drawing for a free copy of Tim Keller's Center Church at this blog.  When I showed up at my local post office to pick up a package a month or so later, I had forgotten all about it.  Then I opened the package to find this wonderful surprise inside.  I have to say, having read so far only a third of it (it is by far Keller's thickest book and I am a slow reader), I would gladly pay many times the cover price for this brilliant resource. (Btw, EVERY page in my copy is as marked up as the picture above.  The whole book should just come dipped in highlighter ink. ;)  The only stipulation for those who won the drawing was to write a review of the book during the week of Sept. 24th, hence my review being written before I am actually done with the book.

Full disclosure: I am a Keller fan...  as in he is hands down my favorite living teacher.  I've listened to literally hundreds of his sermons and used some of his materials for courses I've taught in the church I pastor in Ukraine.  For those of you who listen to Keller, you may be wondering how much of the material in this book you've heard before.  So far (I'm on chapter 10), I'd say that I've heard about 75% of the material in the book in various sermons of his, particularly the Preaching Christ in a Postmodern World course he did with Ed Clowney, the Blueprint for Spiritual Revival series, and the Redeemer conferences.  However, the way that this book synthesizes all this incredible material and fills it out makes it not redundant in the least but rather enriching and engaging.  I realize it may sound a bit presumptuous for only having read a third of the book, but in my opinion this could very well be the most important book for ministers to read outside the Bible.  Yes, it really is that good.

The introduction very succinctly lays out the explanation of the title of the book: that proper balance in ministry is necessary for fruitfulness.  The three balances are on the axes of Gospel, City and Movement.  The balance he refers to in each can be summed up in the following premises:

1) We preach neither legalism nor license, but the Gospel (which Keller rightly points out later is technically not "in between" these two options, but a completely different thing all together.)

2) We neither capitulate to culture not insulate from it, but seek to redeem what we can for the sake of the Gospel.

3) We see the church neither as organization completely nor as organism, but as being a hybrid between the two (leaning more towards organism). 

Keller compellingly weaves his own story and experience into the principles in this book.  Yet he steers away from the temptation to make his own experience the rule for ministry.  Rather he takes the idea of a "theological vision" as dictating how a ministry runs.  This is the middle ground between doctrinal foundation and ministry expression.  Keller lays this all out in the intro very precisely (would you expect any less?).  The intro alone is worth the price of the book (all of which can be read on Amazon.  Read it and convince yourself.)

The first section really gets to the theological heart behind everything else presented here.  This section brilliantly lays out what the Gospel is and what it is not.  Keller lays out the difference between the Gospel and legalism on the one hand and anti-nomianism (license to sin) on the other.  This section deals with the plot lines of Scripture and seeing Christ as the resolution to each one.  Keller lays out how the Gospel itself is not merely the key to justification but to sanctification; that we grow spiritually as we more deeply come to see the implications of the Gospel for our lives and believe it.  Additionally, Keller gets into the idea of "Gospel Renewal" (part 2 of the book.)  In this section, he draws heavily on Richard Lovelace's work, Dynamics of Spiritual Revival (definitely on my wishlist!)  This is an incredible section on the marks of true revival (similar points to his sermon series Blueprint for Spiritual Revival, but further expanded.)

The second section gets into the question of contextualization: how should the believer relate to the world and how should they present the Gospel to the world?  He lays out the Scriptural basis for this and lays out an approach for humble yet confident contextualization of the Gospel. Having been a cross-cultural missionary for over 10 years now, this section is fascinating to me and even after having a bit of experience under my belt in hashing through these ideas, I was challenged to re-assess my own contextualization of the Gospel in the culture I minister in.  The truth is that every believer needs to go through this process concerning the culture they are in.  If it is their own native culture, this process becomes all the more necessary.  This section also includes lots of practical examples. 

It would be unfair to really comment further than I have read, though I am certain the rest of the book will be as excellent as the beginning and am looking forward to the rest.  Bottom line: do yourself, the church you minister in, and the city you live in a huge favor and order this book. 

Sanctification with a pickle on top? or, Why Jesus doesn't care about your chicken sandwich

I actually had a lot of quasi-cynical titles I was debating between.  "Christianity with a side of waffle fries" was way up there too, but you can only put so many titles on the title. ;)  The topic of this post ought to be blatantly obvious already, unless by some miracle you've managed to avoid the trumped up news (and I'm using that word very loosely) flurry over the last few days.

It boils down to Chick-Fil-A's stance against gay marriage and the scores of Christians (and non-Christians) that turned out to wolf down some heterosexual poultry on "Chick-Fil-A" appreciation day.  This post is not about whether it was a meaningful act of the citizenry to proclaim their democratic values and freedom of speech (the link above is a fascinating article on the legal/constitutional implications, btw), or whether it was merely representative of genius marketing and the naive, public belief that we can positively change the world by eating MORE fast food. (really!?)  This post is directly aimed at those who saw their patronage of Cathy's chicken empire as an act of spiritual devotion.

Now, I realize that nothing would so quintessentially pigeonhole us as American Christians as to believe that we could actually grow in spiritual depth by gorging ourselves on waffle fries (oh, but they are soooo tasty!  WWJDF?  What would Jesus deep fry? Answer: waffle fries! :) but I'm afraid there's just no basis for that.  To widen the context, there is a growing interest in what is labelled "moral consumerism" or "moral boycotting" on the negative side.  The idea is that through our purchases (or refusing to purchase) we can be more or less moral.  Now, I'm not saying that it's wrong to think about what we are purchasing or that it has absolutely no value, just that it has no spiritual value.  Yep, you heard me.  Jesus doesn't care about your chicken sandwich or if you're scarfing Oreos.  Allow me to give you the practical reason and then the biblical one.

Practical: The fact is that our global economy is far too interconnected for "moral consumerism" to really mean anything.  Some Christian friends of mine lamented the rainbow-stuffed Oreo and how they will no longer be able to enjoy it's wafery-creamy goodness.  Fact: Oreo is owned by Nabisco, which is a division of Kraft Foods.  Are really you going to stop eating ALL Kraft Foods products?  Good luck.  What about the fact that (prepare to be shocked...) gay marriage (and/or abortion) is NOT the only moral issue Christians should be concerned about?  What about companies who oppress their workers in distant lands?  What about those who provide "golden parachutes" to their CEO's while basically screwing over the rest of their employees, not to mention the rest of the world economy?  Again, I'm not saying that we shouldn't think about these questions or even that we shouldn't take some form of action to ensure that the companies we buy from are more ethical, but to take the practice of "moral consumerism" to its logical end, you will end up naked and starving or living on a kibbutz, weaving your own hemp clothes and eating from the collective garden.  If that's your thing, go for it, though even then one of the kibbutzniks might be gay and, by the same logic, you'd have to abstain from eating their vine-ripened tomatoes.  Go for it, but don't think it will make you more holy. 

Biblical: Fortunately, we are not not stuck with a merely pragmatic argument.  The question of purchasing goods as an expression of faith was actually a question that arose with the very first generation of Christians.  In God's providence, we have the answer of the Apostle Paul to this quandary in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10.  The issue of the day was buying meat at the market.  Almost all the meat in those days was previously offered to false gods in sacrifice before being sold at the market.  What was Paul's answer?  Boycott meat?  At least go ferret out the kosher butcher (which probably wouldn't have been too hard to do in a church with a good portion of Jews)?  Nope.  He says, "Eat whatever is sold in the meat market, asking no questions... food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse."  So much for "moral consumerism".  Paul goes on to argue that if we receive it and praise God for it, we can eat (i.e., consume) whatever we want.  It doesn't really make a bit of difference who it was offered to, or what the butcher (or CEO) stands for or against.  Eat it and thank God. 

I'd like to look at a few results of this idea of "moral consumerism" to see why is has no real spiritual value.  First of all, notice that it is a current trend primarily in the western world where there is an over-abundance of material goods.  If you are really willing to say that "moral consumerism" is the duty of all mature Christians, tell me this: Are you really saying that if your starving, Christian brother in India can barely get grain to eat, and then only from a Hindu merchant who has offered it to one of his plethora of gods, that he has to continue starving?  Or if he does eat it, that he is somehow less "moral" than you are as you waste more money than he will see in his lifetime on your own personal amusement at the mall and on christian t-shirts with witty, little brand rip-offs that make you feel justified in spending more money on yourself than you send to help him?  What about the Christian in a Muslim country where EVERYTHING he buys is Halal?  The thing about "moral consumerism" as a supposed "spiritual virtue" is that it presupposes a material over-abundance of products to choose from and that the consumer has enough money to be picky.  It's not even a viable option for most of the world's population (or in reality for westerners.  See practical reason #1).  But in our self-centered affluence, we like to think that blowing money on ourselves makes us "moral" as long at the CEO stands for what we do.

And here we come to the next point.  The term "moral consumerism" is an appalling, uniquely western term that is really rather oxymoronic.  The premise is that I can be a self-centered consumer and feel good about myself at the same time.  I have no problem with the term "responsible consumerism".  Much like "responsible drinking" it implies that you are careful with this intoxicating practice of blowing money on yourself and do not do it in excess.  But "moral consumerism" seems like it should imply something more than just binging on all of my materialistic desires as long as I can attach some superficial moral value to the CEO of said company.  "Moral consumerism" ought to imply that we are moral in not spending as much on ourselves, that we consider those other brothers across the world who are starving while we debate between waffle fries and Oreos and instead send the money we would've blown on ourselves to help THEM!  Imagine that.  Perhaps the real reason we seek moral alleviation in what we buy is because, deep down, we realize we're simply spending too much on ourselves.

And here we get back to the Apostle.  He goes on to say in these chapters that though we are free to eat whatever we want, we should put one principle over our freedom: love.  If buying meat sacrificed to an idol is a point of offense to the person you're with, then abstain.  If you are with a vegan, don't eat a burger in front of him.  If you are having lunch with a homosexual friend (yes, Christian, you should actually DO that! ;) don't go Chick-Fil-A.  The point of our freedom is to use it to love others.  Spiritually speaking, what you eat doesn't matter.  Why you eat it does.  And the reason in these choices should be because you love others.  If we were half as concerned about exercising ourselves in true, self-sacrificial generosity and submitting our taste buds to loving our neighbor as we are about which trans-fat laden tidbit agrees with our values, we'd go a whole lot further in real sanctification and holiness instead of contenting ourselves with a paltry show of self-centered pseudo-spirituality.

El fin.  Rant, done. ;)  Comments welcome!

social justice in the church: the necessity and the danger

Recently I've been hearing (and reading) lots of people take strong stances on the question of social justice in the life of the church.  These opinions are as varied as "if you're not actively participating in programs to serve the poor and marginalized, you're a horrible Christian", to "social justice is not the calling of the church and is a distraction from the Great Commission."

As for the idea of social justice being a distraction from the church's true calling, this just doesn't seem like a serious argument to me, or one with any biblical foundation anyway.  It really only requires taking a look at perhaps the one Christian who fulfilled the Great Commission like no other: the Apostle Paul.  When Paul went to Jerusalem to tell the other Apostles about how God had been working salvation among the Gentiles through him, fulfilling the Great Commission in an unprecedented way, their reply was that they "perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do." (Gal. 2:9-10)  Far from being a distraction from the Great Commission, the early church and Paul himself looked on issues of social justice as inseparable from the Great Commission.  Their encouragement to Paul is not "make sure you don't let anything distract you from that, Paul", but rather that social justice MUST be part of the Great Commission.  Can anyone really read the epistle of James or 1st John and doubt the importance of social justice in the life of the believer?  I'm not going to attempt a full, theological justification of the necessity of social justice ministry in the church in this blog post.  If anyone is in need of convincing, I'd simply recommend reading Generous Justice, by Tim Keller.

However, I do believe there is a potential danger in the recent awakening to social justice.  That danger is not in the recognition of the need for justice, nor in our call to pursue it, but rather in the motives and goals we hold behind the pursuit.  It is no coincidence that the majority of the noise surrounding the church's call to social justice is coming from developed countries where there is a justice system in tact.  In the rare (read "western") corners of the world where justice is the accepted standard of society, there is a subtle temptation to import the value of justice from society at large into the church, without examining its form and source. 

If the ardor behind our pursuit of justice is the expectation of establishing a just system rather than out of love of our neighbor and to manifest the nature of the coming kingdom, we will burn out and not really be fulfilling the biblical call to social justice.  In other words, there is a danger of seeing ourselves as the fountainhead of justice rather than waiting expectantly for the returning Judge.  Western society, where this renewed call to social justice in the church is strongest, generally supports the value of justice for the individual (compared with the rest of the world anyway).  But has the growing cause of justice in secular society been born from spiritual insight into the character of God?  Is it not more likely the result of abandoning any belief in ultimate, eternal justice and hence there arises our need to create our own justice here and now?  And therein is the danger: that as the church pursues justice she will do so in a way no differently from society at large.  She will merely mimic the secular pursuit of justice.  The danger is that our pursuit of justice ceases to be a manifestation of love to our neighbor and a sign of the coming kingdom of Christ, and rather flows from a desire to control our circumstances, to mitigate our own suffering in the world, and from a lack of real belief in the ultimate justice of the Judge of the living and dead.  The truth is that our pursuit of justice can flow just as much from a lack of faith in the coming justice of God as it can from our obedience to the Judge and in conformation to His character.

The church is called to social justice, but we must understand why and from what motive.  The church is called to transformation into Christ's image and to love our neighbor, therefore social justice is not an optional activity for the Christian.  See, we can hardly pretend to be loving our neighbor if we are indifferent to his suffering (though many do).  This is the whole point of John's rhetorical question in his first epistle: "But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?" (1 Jn. 3:17)  John goes on to make the point that anyone who doesn't love his brother but says he loves God is a liar.  Therefore, it's true that if we neglect questions of social justice and shut up our hearts from others' suffering, we ARE horrible Christians.  But we must be sure that the motives behind our pursuit of justice are namely these: that we pursue social justice out of love for our neighbor, because God loves him or her and calls us to be conformed to His image.  We do so not in expectation that we as the church will be capable of creating perfect conditions where justice flourishes.  In fact, our attempts may not actually change the structures of justice at all.  Another way of saying this is that we pursue social justice as a manifestation of love, as a reflection of the kingdom of God in which Jesus will establish complete and ultimate justice.  We must not forget that we, as believers in Christ, though being the firstfruits of the inaugurated kingdom of God, are not currently in the fully realized version of that kingdom.  Neither is it through our efforts that this realization will come about, but through the return of the King to establish His kingdom. 

I have lived the last 10 years of my life in a country that lacks a just society (at least compared with North America or Western Europe).  Sons of millionaries and members of parliament rape and pillage (literally) whatever and whoever they want and are rarely called to account for it.  Workers in factories labor in conditions that would be considered animal cruelty in the west.  The honest are few and far between and usually suffer for their integrity.  Even rarer are those who would step up to defend the helpless for fear that they would be the ones to bear the blame (and history has often justified this fear.)  Corruption among those who are supposed to uphold justice is so pervasive that people openly joke about it. (One of those "we laugh so we don't cry" kind of things.) The government is interested primarily in stuffing its own pockets rather than caring for the welfare of its citizens.  And it is in that context that I am called to seek justice for my neighbors as a manifestation of love.  What must be the goal?  If the calling is the creation of a just society by my efforts (or even those of the church at large), there is cause for despair.  But if the calling is to come along side the victims, the oppressed, the marginalized and take their suffering as my own and to work to the extent of my ability to serve their tangible needs as a reflection of the coming kingdom where this will be realized, that pursuit of justice can be a true act of love regardless of the outcome.  Sometimes this pursuit yields results (my clout as one of only 2 Americans in the city does tend to improve the attitudes of the government employees I've had to deal with in seeking to serve others, and I am grateful for God's providence in that), but mostly not.  The danger of the pursuit of social justice as a goal in itself becomes very clear, very quickly.  In the framework of corruption and abuse of power, "justice" as an end in itself may never be achieved.  However, justice as a manifestation of compassion, empathy and love will not be diminished or frustrated by its practical results.  We must see that coming along side to take the suffering of the oppressed and marginalized on ourselves is already a victory as it manifests the love of the God who came to bear our suffering, regardless of if temporal justice is served or not.

thoughts?

the obedience that's actually disobedience

I have been a seriously truant blogger of late.  Hoping to correct that a bit... at least post more than once every 4 months. :-/  As we are studying through Deuteronomy on Sundays, there's one topic that comes up fairly often, and on which I've been meaning to post for a while: obedience.  For any of us familiar with the stories of the children of Israel in the desert, we also know it seems to be something that they were not particularly good at.  But the interesting thing that stands out in these passages is the nature of their disobedience.

Perhaps the most infamous act of disobedience the Israelites committed was when they refused to go into the promised land.  The epistle to the Hebrews gives us some fascinating insight into what the essence of their disobedience actually was in that instance.  The writer of Hebrews explains that they could not enter in because of unbelief.  That might not be news to us.  But the question is, "what did they not believe?"  Surely it doesn't mean they didn't believe in the existence of God.  What then did they not believe?  In Heb. 4 the explanation is more specific: "For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard."  We are told that the essence of their sin was unbelief in the Gospel.  What Gospel?  That God was giving them a land purely by His grace.  As He says to the Israelites while the are still gathered around Sinai, presumably not moving on because they think they need to keep the Law first, "Enough sitting on this mountain!  Go in and take the land!  It's a gift!" (Deut. 1:6-8) 

The reason they didn't enter into the promised land is because they still believed it had something to do with them, that it somehow depended on their ability and strength.  See, the thing was, God had set their bodies free from the slavery of Egypt, but in many ways it took much longer to set their hearts free.  The only king they had ever known was a demanding tyrant who would severely punish them for not fulfilling his every whim.  The only life they had known was a life where they had to sweat and bleed and perform back-breaking labor to receive even the smallest amount of provision.  It was completely foreign to them that their new King, the Lord, would bless them, would give them something so bountiful as a whole land of their own, simply by His grace.  The Israelites were torn between their complaining and infidelity to God on the one hand and their fearful attempts to fulfill the Law and hesitance to believe in the grace of God on the other.  These are really just two sides of the same coin.

This is the same dilemma many Christians find themselves in.  They toss back and forth between wandering from the Lord to serve idols and fitful attempts at keeping God's commands.  But both of these come from the same root: a lack of belief in the Gospel of grace.  On the one hand, our lack of belief manifests in running to things that really can't fulfill us, because mistrust the heart of God.  If we believed that we were accepted by God no matter what, we would not be snared in the trap of people-pleasing.  If we believed that God cares so much for us that He gave His life to secure our blessing, we would not be greedy out of a fear that God will not provide for us.  The root of any and every sin is a lack of belief in the Gospel of grace, a mistrust of the generous heart of God.

On the other hand, and this is the more deceptive part, our obedience would be a very different obedience if we truly believed the Gospel.  See, the Israelites at times attempted to prove their worth, their ability to earn God's love.  But the truth is, they were still obeying like slaves: out of fear.  They didn't obey out of joy or thanks that God had shown them grace or in a confidence that their obedience was a reaction to His favor, not a condition for it.  That is, their "obedience" was not obedience at all because it was born out of a mistrust of God's heart.  Paul writes of this distinction in Rom. 8 saying, "For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, 'Abba! Father!'"

A slave mentality is summarized by the motivation of fear.  A slave must obey otherwise the the master will beat him or worse.  There is absolutely no trust involved.  In fact, the master-slave relationship exists for the purpose of the slave's obedience.  That is what the slave is there for and if he should cease to perform his tasks, the relationship is in jeopardy.  But God has, by His act of grace, redeemed us and made us children and heirs.  We, as Jesus told His disciples, are no longer called slaves but friends.  The obedience of a child is entirely different than the obedience of a slave.  Ideally, the son obeys his father not in order to earn love or favor, but because he is confident that the father already loves him.  His obedience (again, we're talking ideally here) exists for the purpose of relationship with the father.  Not the other way around, as with the slave.  His obedience is not a condition for the father's love but a response to it.

When, as children of God, we attempt to keep God's commandments or fulfill the instructions of the Bible with the mentality of a slave, we are actually disobeying.  When we see God's acceptance of us as dependent on our obedience, when we do what we are supposed to do out of fear that He will punish us or cast us out if we don't, then despite what we are doing externally, it is not obedience.  It is the mentality of slave.  But that mentality implies of our God that He is a cruel and harsh master rather than a loving and gracious Father.  Therefore, any fulfillment of commands which is born out of a mistrust of His loving, fatherly heart is actually disobedience.  This view of obedience ought not to surprise us, since God Himself was the one who said, "the LORD does not see as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."

Is your obedience that of a slave or a child?  Is it born out of a trust of His grace or unbelief in the Gospel?  Have you mistakenly thought you were obeying God when the doubt in your heart of God's fatherly love actually meant that your rule-keeping was disobedience?  May we learn to be just as attentive to the motive of our hearts as to the works of our hands, because God does not want slaves, but children. 

This post is adapted from the sermon on Deut. 1:1-8 - Slavery and Sonship, available in Russian here.

what is worship?

It might seem like too simple of a question.  As Christians, we talk about worship frequently.  We say that we were created to worship.  But what does that mean?  If we're talking about something that is, ultimately, the purpose of our life, we'd better have a firm grasp on what we're talking about.  Too many Christians seemingly think that glorifying God consists in the bare realization of the facts of God's power, majesty, etc.  The sky is blue, 2+2=4, and God is almighty.  Perhaps the concept of worship is even taken to mean acknowledgment of these facts with a measure of fear. 

However, this cannot be what is meant biblically by the idea of “worshiping God”.  All we need to do to make that clear is answer this question: does satan realize the facts of God’s omnipotence and majesty?  Better than we do!  He has SEEN God’s unveiled power and glory directly!  Is he terrified in the presence of God?  Does he have an abundant “measure” of fear?  Yes!  James says, the “demons believe and tremble”.  Yet, pay attention: neither satan nor demons worship God.  Therefore, recognition of facts, even with a measure of fear, is NOT worship!  A Christian who thinks, by acknowledging the facts of God’s power and majesty, even with a little fear, that he is worshiping God is doing no such thing!  If that’s you, you’re lying to yourself.  What then is the biblical meaning of worship to God?  This is an important question, right?

The opposite of worship is not denial of fact, but rather blasphemy.  Satan realizes God’s power and majesty, but he has absolutely no pleasure in it.  He is disgusted by it and filled with anger because of God’s majesty.  This should give us a hint as to the essence of biblical worship.  If the opposite of worship is to be disgusted by God, then worship itself is, above all, to find pleasure in God.

The word “worship” in Scripture is used, and we use it in Christian context, interchangeably with the word “praise.”  But what is praise?  Think outside of the religious context for a moment.  When we watch a great movie, we praise it to our friends, “oh, you have to watch that!”  When we eat a delicious meal, we praise it, “this is amazing!”  Praise then is the expression and culmination of our delight in something.  Not only is it the expression of delight, but the expressing completes the delight.  This is what it means, biblically, to praise God: to express our delight in Jesus and therein, our delight finds it’s culmination.

Therefore, biblically speaking, it is impossible to worship Jesus if we do not enjoy Him.  If you think you worship Jesus, but do not have any enjoyment in Him, you are not really worshiping.  Jesus convicted the Pharisees of this very thing, saying “you worship me with your lips, but your hearts are far from me.”

To worship Jesus, to love Him, in the biblical sense, is to delight in Him as a bride in her groom.  This is the heart of true worship.  True worship is not self-improvement motivated by fear and duty.  Sadly, that is what many Christians call “worship”.  Rather it is rapture, delight in the arms of our Beloved Jesus.  We may find this difficult to understand, because we have got this stoic, pharisaic idea into our heads that worship of God can’t mean enjoyment of Him. We've been told that one must suppress and deny desire for the Lord's sake.  CS Lewis writes that our problem is not that we seek pleasure too much but that we seek it not enough.  "We are content to fool about with drink, sex and ambition, not even suspecting that we are offered infinite joy in Christ."  Lest it be misunderstood, this is not making a god of pleasure.  John Piper states pointedly in his book Desiring God, “[this understanding] is not making a god of pleasure.  Rather, it is saying that you have already made a god out of whatever you find most pleasure in.”  The words of Scripture confirm enjoyment as the essence of worship.  Ps. 16:11, “In Your presence is fullness of joy; At Your right hand are pleasures forevermore.”  Are you truly worshiping?