How Can I Change?/The Battle Against Sin

From Gospel Translations

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]

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]

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....

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]

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:

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.

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.

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.

It’s important to see the transition Paul is making in this third chapter. The first two chapters of Colossians emphasize the supremacy and sufficiency of Christ. He stresses this again at the beginning of Chapter 3. Paul consciously refrained from teaching the Colossians about sanctification until they had first understood Christ’s work for them and within them. Until they grasped what it meant to be reconciled to and regenerated by God, he knew they would not be properly motivated by grace.

Neither will we. This is why the second and third chapters of this book highlight regeneration and our union with Christ. We have also written a book on the doctrine of justification called This Great Salvation. Like Paul, we want to motivate by grace. Once that foundation is established, then we can pursue godliness without straying toward legalism or license.

Paul defines the process of sanctification with two striking phrases: We are to “rid ourselves” of sin and “clothe ourselves” with righteousness (Col 3:8,12). It is only because of what Christ has accomplished on the cross and the miracle of regeneration that we are able to obey these com- mands.And yet those two supernatural imperatives now leave us without excuse. If grace does not result in godliness, then we have not accurately under- stood grace. God fully expects us to change, grow, and mature. As F.F. Bruce exhorts, “Now be (in actual practice) what you now are (by a divine act).”^[11]

Please note that Paul says we are to “rid ourselves ” and “clothe ourselves .” We have the privilege and responsibility of participating in change. Though sanctification is no less a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit than regeneration, there is one fundamental difference: in sanctification we have a critical role to play. “God works in us and with us,” said the great Puritan pastor John Owen, “not against us or without us.”

Statements such as “Stop trying and start trusting” or “Let go and let God” make popular plaques but poor theology. Those who claim “All effort is wrong” are badly mistaken. Actually, the Bible instructs us to “Make every effort...to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord” (Heb 12:14, emphasis added). This is grace- motivated effort, of course, but it’s effort nonetheless. God hasn’t told us to pray or simply trust him for godliness; he says “train yourself to be godly” (1Ti 4:7, emphasis added). We are to obey in the power of the Holy Spirit.

Paul clarifies this combination of God’s work and our responsibility when he writes, “Continue to work out (not work for) your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose” (Php 2:12-13). Though our effort apart from God’s work would be futile, sanctification cannot be delegated to God. Each of us must mow his own lawn.

What form does our responsibility take? How do we fulfill the biblical command to rid ourselves of sin? Scripture offers a two-part strategy.

Strategy #1: Attack Sin

I love the offensive posture of the New Testament toward sin. Nowhere is that more evident than in the Apostle Paul’s terse command to the Colossians: “Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature” (Col 3:5). In the battle for personal holiness, aggressiveness is both a command and a necessity. We must be ruthless. We must go on the attack.

Paul uses a violent metaphor here not simply to get our attention but to underscore a critical aspect of sanctification. We are to kill any and all manifestations of sin in our hearts. We must take the initiative to execute sin daily.

Jesus went so far as to say, “If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell” (Mt 5:29). He also recommended amputating a hand for the same reason. Was Jesus commanding actual surgery here? I think not, because a hand or eye isn’t the root cause. Jesus purposely used vivid imagery to make a point: We must recognize the seriousness of sin and deal decisively with it. Resisting sin when tempted is not sufficient. We must take drastic steps to attack and kill sin in our lives. John Owen exhorts us to pursue “a victory over it, and pursuit of it to a complete conquest...sin will not other- wise die, but by being gradually and constantly weakened; spare it, and it heals its wounds, and recovers strength.”^[14]

The spiritual discipline of putting sin to death, other- wise known as mortification, is a neglected area of truth. Most of us are about as familiar with this subject as we are with outhouses. “Our forefathers used to speak of mortify- ing sin,” notes Sinclair Ferguson.^[15] And J.I. Packer laments, “It is a theme on which no contemporary writing of significance seems to be available.”^[16] That’s not surprising, but it is revealing. Can you imagine a book titled Put Sin To Death! as a Christian bestseller?

Mortification is not popular because it tends to be difficult. Ask the person trying to submit cheerfully to a boss who has repeatedly denied a promotion. Ask the recently converted, unmarried couple who must now control sexual urges they have gratified for years. But listen: this is not weekend golf we’re playing here. This is war. Holiness and discipleship are war.

Attacking sin isn’t complex. And though I want to say this sensitively, I also want to say it firmly: Your ability to attack sin doesn’t depend on your past. We have no acceptable excuse for sinning. It’s never to be viewed as an understandable weakness.

Living as a Christian means living in the trench- es. Sinclair Ferguson says it as well as anyone could:

What then is this killing of sin? It is the constant battle against sin which we fight daily—the refusal to allow the eye to wander, the mind to contemplate, the affections to run after anything which will draw us from Christ. It is the deliberate rejection of any sinful thought, suggestion, desire, aspiration, deed, circumstance or provocation at the moment we become conscious of its existence. It is the consistent endeavor to do all in our powers to weaken the grip which sin in general, and its manifestations in our own lives in particular, has. It is not accomplished only by saying ‘no’ to what is wrong, but by a determined acceptance of all the good and spiritually nourishing disciplines of the gospel.^[18]

Does this describe your attitude? Toward which end are your energies primarily directed, recreation or righteousness? Self-indulgence or self-control? Are you prepared to do whatever it takes to win the war? If so, what is your strategy for attacking the sin in your life right now?

Strategy #2: Avoid Sin

Attacking sin is not all that’s involved in the sanctifica- tion process. We must avoid sin as well. As followers of Jesus Christ, we are called to a lifestyle that is distinct from our surrounding culture: “Since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from every- thing that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holi- ness out of reverence for God” (2Co 7:1). What are these promises that motivate us to purify ourselves and pursue holiness? God’s own offer to be uniquely present among his people as we separate ourselves from the world: “‘I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people’” (2Co 6:16).