How Can I Change?/The Battle Against Sin

From Gospel Translations

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to:navigation, search
Line 17: Line 17:
Whether or not you’ve heard the phrase, you’ve no doubt encountered therapeutic thinking. It shows up in the courtroom when a serial killer’s attorney asks for leniency on the grounds that his client was routinely abused by an alcoholic father. It claims most of us grew up in “dysfunctional” families, thus offering a ready-made explanation and excuse for our behavior. Rather than emphasizing personal responsibility, it stresses the way we’ve been psychologically affected by others or by our environment. As social scientist Dr. James Deese notes, therapeutic thinking “is so ingrained in modern American attitudes as hardly to be challenged.”<ref>Ibid.</ref>  
Whether or not you’ve heard the phrase, you’ve no doubt encountered therapeutic thinking. It shows up in the courtroom when a serial killer’s attorney asks for leniency on the grounds that his client was routinely abused by an alcoholic father. It claims most of us grew up in “dysfunctional” families, thus offering a ready-made explanation and excuse for our behavior. Rather than emphasizing personal responsibility, it stresses the way we’ve been psychologically affected by others or by our environment. As social scientist Dr. James Deese notes, therapeutic thinking “is so ingrained in modern American attitudes as hardly to be challenged.”<ref>Ibid.</ref>  
-
{{LeftInsert|'''Meditate on Colossians 2:8. '''How can we protect ourselves from being taken captive?}}Surprisingly, the one institution best equipped to challenge the therapeutic trend has actually contributed to its popularity. I’m speaking of the Church. Rather than expose the errors of psychotherapy, the American Church in most cases has given uncritical acceptance...though there are some outspoken exceptions. In his book ''Biblical '' Medical Ethics, ''Dr. Franklin Payne comments, “Psychotherapy, as psychology and psychiatry, needs the '' most critical and detailed examination by evangelical Christians...Many Christians are influenced more by the concepts of secular psychotherapists than by the Word of God.”<ref>Franklin E. Payne, Jr., M.D., ''Biblical/Medical Ethics: The Christian and the Practice of Medicine ''(Milford, MI: Mott Media, Inc., 1985), p. 155.</ref>  
+
{{LeftInsert|'''Meditate on Colossians 2:8. '''How can we protect ourselves from being taken captive?}}Surprisingly, the one institution best equipped to challenge the therapeutic trend has actually contributed to its popularity. I’m speaking of the Church. Rather than expose the errors of psychotherapy, the American Church in most cases has given uncritical acceptance...though there are some outspoken exceptions. In his book ''Biblical Medical Ethics, ''Dr. Franklin Payne comments, “Psychotherapy, as psychology and psychiatry, needs the most critical and detailed examination by evangelical Christians...Many Christians are influenced more by the concepts of secular psychotherapists than by the Word of God.”<ref>Franklin E. Payne, Jr., M.D., ''Biblical/Medical Ethics: The Christian and the Practice of Medicine ''(Milford, MI: Mott Media, Inc., 1985), p. 155.</ref>  
{{LeftInsert|"Evangelical and charismatic Christians have unguarded borders where psychological ideas easily slip over."<ref>William K. Kilpatrick, ''Psychological Seduction: The Failure of Modern Psychology ''(Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1983), p. 24.</ref><br>'''—William Kilpatrick'''}}I’ve met many of the Christians Dr. Payne is describing. Not long ago I was asked to speak at a men’s retreat in another church. At the end of one session I was approached by a man who introduced himself and then began telling me about his difficult situation. He had grown up in a dysfunctional family. He was a codependent. He suffered from low self-esteem. In the space of the first two minutes he must have used almost every psychological buzz word in existence.  
{{LeftInsert|"Evangelical and charismatic Christians have unguarded borders where psychological ideas easily slip over."<ref>William K. Kilpatrick, ''Psychological Seduction: The Failure of Modern Psychology ''(Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1983), p. 24.</ref><br>'''—William Kilpatrick'''}}I’ve met many of the Christians Dr. Payne is describing. Not long ago I was asked to speak at a men’s retreat in another church. At the end of one session I was approached by a man who introduced himself and then began telling me about his difficult situation. He had grown up in a dysfunctional family. He was a codependent. He suffered from low self-esteem. In the space of the first two minutes he must have used almost every psychological buzz word in existence.  
Line 39: Line 39:
I don’t think anything has been done in the name of Christ and under the banner of Christianity that has proven more destructive to human personality, and hence counterproductive to the evangelistic enterprise, than the unchristian, uncouth strategy of attempting to make people aware of their lost and sinful condition.<ref>Robert Schuller, quoted by Michael Scott Horton in ''Made in America: The Shaping of Modern American Evangelicalism ''(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1991), p. 78.</ref>  
I don’t think anything has been done in the name of Christ and under the banner of Christianity that has proven more destructive to human personality, and hence counterproductive to the evangelistic enterprise, than the unchristian, uncouth strategy of attempting to make people aware of their lost and sinful condition.<ref>Robert Schuller, quoted by Michael Scott Horton in ''Made in America: The Shaping of Modern American Evangelicalism ''(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1991), p. 78.</ref>  
-
{{LeftInsert|"To say that our first need in life is to learn about sin may sound strange, but in the sense intended it is profoundly true. If you have not learned about sin, you cannot understand yourself, or your fellow-men, or the world you live in, or the Christian faith. And you will not be able to make head or tail of the Bible. For the Bible is an exposition of God’s answer to the problem of human sin, and unless you have that problem clearly before you, you will keep missing the point of what it says...It is clear, therefore, that we need to fix in our minds what our ancestors would have called ‘clear views of sin.’"<ref>J.I. Packer, God’s Words(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1981), p. 71. </ref><br>'''—J.I. Packer'''}}
+
{{LeftInsert|"To say that our first need in life is to learn about sin may sound strange, but in the sense intended it is profoundly true. If you have not learned about sin, you cannot understand yourself, or your fellow-men, or the world you live in, or the Christian faith. And you will not be able to make head or tail of the Bible. For the Bible is an exposition of God’s answer to the problem of human sin, and unless you have that problem clearly before you, you will keep missing the point of what it says...It is clear, therefore, that we need to fix in our minds what our ancestors would have called ‘clear views of sin.’"<ref>J.I. Packer, God’s Words(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1981), p. 71. </ref><br>'''—J.I. Packer'''}} This pastor says that
 +
labeling sin as “rebellion
 +
against God” is “shallow and
 +
insulting to the human
 +
being.”<ref>Quoted in Anthony A. Hoekema, ''Created in God’s Image ''(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1986), p. 106.</ref>His conviction
 +
about man’s inherent worth
 +
leads him to the remarkable
 +
conclusion that a new
 +
“reformation” is in order. Where Martin Luther’s empha-
 +
sis on salvation by grace through faith transformed the
 +
Church in the sixteenth century, he argues, today’s
 +
churches must recognize the sacred right of every person
 +
to self-esteem.
 +
 
 +
I do not question the man’s sincerity, but his statements
 +
are bogus. They are, in fact, false doctrine. The modern
 +
emphasis on self-esteem has become an unacceptable
 +
alternative to the biblical doctrines of justification and
 +
sanctification.
 +
 
 +
''Justification. ''Jesus did not die on the cross to improve
 +
our self-esteem. He died to atone for our sin. And yet the
 +
cross ''does ''teach us a crucial lesson about our worth: We
 +
are each worthy of the wrath of God. As a manifestation of
 +
God’s unmerited mercy, the cross reveals the depth and
 +
seriousness of our sin. Anthony Hoekema points this out:
 +
 
 +
{{RightInsert|'''For Further Study: '''The ''NIV Complete Concordance ''lists 466 occurrences of the word “sin” (or a derivative) in Scripture. For a biblical understanding of this vital subject...just start reading.}}In today’s world there is little emphasis on the bibli-
 +
cal doctrine of sin. But a person with a shallow
 +
sense of sin and of the wrath of God against our sin
 +
will neither feel the need for nor understand the
 +
biblical doctrine of justification. When sin is
 +
ignored, minimized or redefined we no longer live
 +
aware of our desperate need for Jesus Christ nor
 +
appreciative of what he accomplished on the cross
 +
for us.<ref>Anthony A. Hoekema, ''Saved by Grace ''(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989), p. 153. </ref>
 +
 
 +
Unless we understand the nature of sin and how offensive it is to God, we’ll never
 +
understand why the cross
 +
was necessary. We’ll never
 +
be amazed by grace.
 +
 
 +
{{LeftInsert|"I have often heard it said, ‘If I had been the only person on the earth, Jesus would still have died for me.’ Although our Lord could have given his life for just one person, it most certainly would not have been because that person was so valuable, but because God was so gracious. Such an occurrence should hardly, therefore, be regarded as a source of pride or self-esteem. For me to argue that Jesus would have died for me if I were the only person on earth simply indicates that my sins alone, without the rest of you contributing your share, were sufficient to demand the severe punishment Jesus Christ vicariously assumed in my place. When faced with that reality, we ought to weep for the selfless sacrifice of our Lord instead of finding in it one more opportunity for feeling good about ourselves.<ref>Dan Matzat, et al., Power Religion: The Selling Out of the Evangelical Church?, Michael Scott Horton, ed. (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1992), p. 256.</ref><br>'''—Dan Matzat'''}}''Sanctification. ''A clear
 +
understanding of the doctrine of sin is imperative for
 +
sanctification as well.
 +
Scripture reveals that our
 +
most serious hindrance to
 +
growth is sin against God.
 +
The recovery movement, on
 +
the other hand, insists that
 +
unmet needs, pain, damaged
 +
emotions, or low self-esteem
 +
are the root of our difficulties. The two conclusions
 +
are irreconcilably opposed.
 +
 
 +
{{RightInsert|'''For Further Study: Many of the Bible’s references to God’s compassion can be found in the Psalms (9:12,18;34:18; 147:3) and Isaiah (49:13; 61:1).}}I am not denying the
 +
reality or severity of the pain
 +
we experience when others
 +
sin against us. It is critical I
 +
not be misunderstood here.
 +
The Bible makes numerous
 +
references to those who are afflicted and oppressed. But
 +
please understand: ''Pain is not our root problem. ''Jesus
 +
said, “For from ''within, ''out of men’s hearts, come evil
 +
thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery,
 +
greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance,
 +
and folly. All these evils come from ''inside ''and make a
 +
man ‘unclean’” (Mk 7:21-23, emphasis added; see also Jas
 +
1:14-15).
 +
 
 +
Too many of us “feel the reality of our wounds more
 +
than the fact of our sin.”11 But if we genuinely want to be
 +
conformed to the image of Jesus Christ, this will have to
 +
change. Our freedom and maturity depend on it. The
 +
therapeutic model misdiagnoses our root problem, and
 +
thus proves incapable of providing an effective solution.
 +
But once we recognize sin as the source of our problem,
 +
suddenly we have a scriptural solution and biblical hope
 +
for change. It’s called the doctrine of sanctification.
 +
 
 +
=== Mowing Your Own Lawn ===
 +
 
 +
Sanctification is a lifelong process of repentance (not
 +
recovery) and obedience (not inner healing) that results in holiness (not wholeness) for the glory of God (not personal
 +
fulfillment). This doctrine is succinctly stated in Colossians
 +
3:1-17. If you haven’t already done so, please take a minute
 +
to read that passage before you continue.

Revision as of 15:48, 30 May 2008

 

Notice: This template is no longer in use. Please use {{Info}} instead.

In his book titled A Nation Of Victims: The Decay Of The American Character, author Charles Sykes makes the following observation: “Over the last half century, the triumph of therapeutic thinking has been so complete that it is frequently taken for granted; what began with Dr. Freud is now the staple of daytime television talk shows, routine in politics, almost reflexive in matters of criminal justice and ethics.”[1]

Whether or not you’ve heard the phrase, you’ve no doubt encountered therapeutic thinking. It shows up in the courtroom when a serial killer’s attorney asks for leniency on the grounds that his client was routinely abused by an alcoholic father. It claims most of us grew up in “dysfunctional” families, thus offering a ready-made explanation and excuse for our behavior. Rather than emphasizing personal responsibility, it stresses the way we’ve been psychologically affected by others or by our environment. As social scientist Dr. James Deese notes, therapeutic thinking “is so ingrained in modern American attitudes as hardly to be challenged.”[2]

Meditate on Colossians 2:8. How can we protect ourselves from being taken captive?

Surprisingly, the one institution best equipped to challenge the therapeutic trend has actually contributed to its popularity. I’m speaking of the Church. Rather than expose the errors of psychotherapy, the American Church in most cases has given uncritical acceptance...though there are some outspoken exceptions. In his book Biblical Medical Ethics, Dr. Franklin Payne comments, “Psychotherapy, as psychology and psychiatry, needs the most critical and detailed examination by evangelical Christians...Many Christians are influenced more by the concepts of secular psychotherapists than by the Word of God.”[3]

"Evangelical and charismatic Christians have unguarded borders where psychological ideas easily slip over."[4]
—William Kilpatrick

I’ve met many of the Christians Dr. Payne is describing. Not long ago I was asked to speak at a men’s retreat in another church. At the end of one session I was approached by a man who introduced himself and then began telling me about his difficult situation. He had grown up in a dysfunctional family. He was a codependent. He suffered from low self-esteem. In the space of the first two minutes he must have used almost every psychological buzz word in existence.

It was an awkward encounter. I wasn’t eager to dis- agree with him or correct him. I had never met the man before, and I wanted him to experience my care and concern. But as he went on and on it seemed obvious he assumed I agreed with him. And I didn’t. Why? Though he spoke psychobabble fluently, his diagnosis omitted any reference to the “S” word....

1What things in Jesus’ life might cause a counselor to recommend that he join the “recovery movement”?


Sin.

Such omissions regrettably are the norm today in popular Christian literature and radio talk shows. We are pursuing a deeper understanding of ourselves (as defined by the recovery movement) rather than a deeper conviction of sin (as defined in Scripture). We have become more concerned about our own needs and feelings than about the character and commands of God. No wonder we aren’t maturing as he intends.

Our Most Serious Problem

Writing a century ago, J.C. Ryle offered a sharp but simple explanation for the deficiencies he observed in the Church: “Dim or indistinct views of sin are the origin of most of the errors, heresies and false doctrines of the present day...I believe that one of the chief wants of the church in the nineteenth century has been, and is, clearer, fuller teaching about sin.”[5]If this was accurate during his generation, how much more so today.

But we’ve gone a step further. Contemporary teaching about self-esteem has replaced the doctrine of sin. Consider this remark from one well-known author:

I don’t think anything has been done in the name of Christ and under the banner of Christianity that has proven more destructive to human personality, and hence counterproductive to the evangelistic enterprise, than the unchristian, uncouth strategy of attempting to make people aware of their lost and sinful condition.[6]

"To say that our first need in life is to learn about sin may sound strange, but in the sense intended it is profoundly true. If you have not learned about sin, you cannot understand yourself, or your fellow-men, or the world you live in, or the Christian faith. And you will not be able to make head or tail of the Bible. For the Bible is an exposition of God’s answer to the problem of human sin, and unless you have that problem clearly before you, you will keep missing the point of what it says...It is clear, therefore, that we need to fix in our minds what our ancestors would have called ‘clear views of sin.’"[7]
—J.I. Packer 
This pastor says that

labeling sin as “rebellion against God” is “shallow and insulting to the human being.”[8]His conviction about man’s inherent worth leads him to the remarkable conclusion that a new “reformation” is in order. Where Martin Luther’s empha- sis on salvation by grace through faith transformed the Church in the sixteenth century, he argues, today’s churches must recognize the sacred right of every person to self-esteem.

I do not question the man’s sincerity, but his statements are bogus. They are, in fact, false doctrine. The modern emphasis on self-esteem has become an unacceptable alternative to the biblical doctrines of justification and sanctification.

Justification. Jesus did not die on the cross to improve our self-esteem. He died to atone for our sin. And yet the cross does teach us a crucial lesson about our worth: We are each worthy of the wrath of God. As a manifestation of God’s unmerited mercy, the cross reveals the depth and seriousness of our sin. Anthony Hoekema points this out:

For Further Study: The NIV Complete Concordance lists 466 occurrences of the word “sin” (or a derivative) in Scripture. For a biblical understanding of this vital subject...just start reading.

In today’s world there is little emphasis on the bibli- cal doctrine of sin. But a person with a shallow sense of sin and of the wrath of God against our sin will neither feel the need for nor understand the biblical doctrine of justification. When sin is ignored, minimized or redefined we no longer live aware of our desperate need for Jesus Christ nor appreciative of what he accomplished on the cross for us.[9]

Unless we understand the nature of sin and how offensive it is to God, we’ll never understand why the cross was necessary. We’ll never be amazed by grace.

"I have often heard it said, ‘If I had been the only person on the earth, Jesus would still have died for me.’ Although our Lord could have given his life for just one person, it most certainly would not have been because that person was so valuable, but because God was so gracious. Such an occurrence should hardly, therefore, be regarded as a source of pride or self-esteem. For me to argue that Jesus would have died for me if I were the only person on earth simply indicates that my sins alone, without the rest of you contributing your share, were sufficient to demand the severe punishment Jesus Christ vicariously assumed in my place. When faced with that reality, we ought to weep for the selfless sacrifice of our Lord instead of finding in it one more opportunity for feeling good about ourselves.[10]
—Dan Matzat

Sanctification. A clear understanding of the doctrine of sin is imperative for sanctification as well. Scripture reveals that our most serious hindrance to growth is sin against God. The recovery movement, on the other hand, insists that unmet needs, pain, damaged emotions, or low self-esteem are the root of our difficulties. The two conclusions are irreconcilably opposed.

For Further Study: Many of the Bible’s references to God’s compassion can be found in the Psalms (9:12,18;34:18; 147:3) and Isaiah (49:13; 61:1).

I am not denying the reality or severity of the pain we experience when others sin against us. It is critical I not be misunderstood here. The Bible makes numerous references to those who are afflicted and oppressed. But please understand: Pain is not our root problem. Jesus said, “For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance, and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man ‘unclean’” (Mk 7:21-23, emphasis added; see also Jas 1:14-15).

Too many of us “feel the reality of our wounds more than the fact of our sin.”11 But if we genuinely want to be conformed to the image of Jesus Christ, this will have to change. Our freedom and maturity depend on it. The therapeutic model misdiagnoses our root problem, and thus proves incapable of providing an effective solution. But once we recognize sin as the source of our problem, suddenly we have a scriptural solution and biblical hope for change. It’s called the doctrine of sanctification.

Mowing Your Own Lawn

Sanctification is a lifelong process of repentance (not recovery) and obedience (not inner healing) that results in holiness (not wholeness) for the glory of God (not personal fulfillment). This doctrine is succinctly stated in Colossians 3:1-17. If you haven’t already done so, please take a minute to read that passage before you continue.


Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found
Retrieved from "http://gospeltranslations.org/wiki/How_Can_I_Change%3F/The_Battle_Against_Sin"
Navigation
Volunteer Tools
Other Wikis
Toolbox