Author Archives: Samuel Chetty

Christianity and Popular Culture – Part 5

Leave a reply

In this last installment of the series, I’ll mention a form of media which I have termed “Christian subculture.” This involves material such as movies, music, and novels that have an obviously Christian message and seek to reinforce Christian beliefs to the audience. I do not have much to say about this genre of media. My only caution would be to avoid using this kind of media to make certain doctrines seem more attractive to people. I think that Christians should think for themselves about what they believe, and I do not want for people to accept doctrines they’re not sure about just because the doctrine looked cool in a movie or a song. But as long as it’s not done in a manipulative way, I think it is good to have media with strong Biblical themes.

Christianity and Popular Culture – Part 4

Leave a reply

We’re continuing the series on Christianity and popular culture, and this time, I want to discuss the approach of reinterpreting themes of secular media to fit Christian principles. This approach is very prevalent in the Contemporary Christian Music industry, although it has been applied throughout history, including the early church, and even in the Bible itself.

Let’s consider Christian pop music. The lyrics of Christian pop music are often similar to their secular counterparts. The Christian songs about God’s love sound a lot like secular love songs. The songs about resisting the devil and temptation sound like the post-breakup songs of the secular music scene. In other words, the themes of secular music become an analogy for Christian themes. An advantage to this approach is that you make Biblical themes more relatable to people who are interested in spiritual life but not theologically minded. Instead of bewildering people with theological detail, you can give them a practical illustration to help guide their lives.

Let’s examine the love story analogy in detail. Jesus is the “perfect boyfriend/girlfriend” who made the ultimate sacrifice by giving up His life us. By doing so, He inspired us to run from our old, bad lover (Satan) and commit our lives to Him instead. This way of thinking about the Gospel can be supported by Biblical passages such as:

John 3:16 – “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.”

Romans 5:10 – “For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more surely, having been reconciled, will we be saved by his life.”

When the Gospel is understood in terms of human love, some traditional Christian doctrines get reinterpreted. For example, judgment and condemnation take on a new dynamic. Instead of the hellfire preached by “classic” Evangelicals to depict God’s justice, contemporary Evangelicalism tends to imply that unbelievers are not condemned by God, but rather, their condemnation is the anguish and despair that they experience when they isolate themselves from God and His love. In other words, all those sad pop songs about loneliness become a metaphor for hell.

I don’t have a problem with the love story analogy thus far. But here is where I think it steps over the line: When people like myself come out and suggest that Christ’s death and resurrection actually has the power to save all mankind in the fullness of time, they get argued down with the claim that God cannot save everybody because He would be forcing a relationship on people. There is this idea that a relationship of love cannot exist without the possibility of one entity eternally resisting the other. Whether people agree or disagree with me on human destiny is irrelevant to the topic under consideration. I am just trying to highlight what I think are influences for popular culture on theological debate. If the romantic analogy is taken literally, some Scriptures have to be reinterpreted from their face value meaning. For example:

Romans 9:16-21 – “It depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy. For the scripture says to Pharaoh, “I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he chooses, and he hardens the heart of whomever he chooses. You will say to me then, “Why then does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who indeed are you, a human being, to argue with God? Will what is molded say to the one who molds it, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one object for special use and another for ordinary use?”

I have never heard a love song with lyrics like this. Now, I am willing to admit that when the Scripture speaks of God hardening one’s heart, it does not have to mean that God specifically determined the state of one’s heart or the course of one’s life (although I personally see predestination in Romans 9, some other commentators do not – see the links at the end of the article). However, this semantic issue does not obscure the core idea that pops out at me, which is that utilization of our will is not the ultimate, driving force behind our lives, for we cannot make ourselves set our will in just any way imaginable. I think that is the key idea in Romans 9; without it, the whole chapter doesn’t make sense to me. Whether God is involved or uninvolved with that is a secondary matter in my opinion.

Notice that, in the passage above, Paul predicted an objection to what he just said: “Why then does he [God] still find fault? For who can resist his will?”

Suppose that Paul really meant to say, “God makes us fully capable of either accepting or rejecting Him.” If that is what Paul meant, I think he would have responded to the objection by saying something to that effect. But instead, Paul responds with,

“But who indeed are you, a human being, to argue with God? Will what is molded say to the one who molds it, ‘Why have you made me like this?’”

To make Paul’s writing fit with the type of free will found in the love story analogy, you have reinterpret Romans 9 (and other similar Scriptures) to a considerable degree.

Having said everything in this article, I should emphasize that I do not have a “problem” with the Contemporary Christian Music industry. They create songs with great analogies for Biblical themes. I just think we need to remember that the lyrical themes are analogies. If taken too literally, they can cause confusion or frustration. In my own life I have had many spiritual analogies which were helpful at a particular time. However, as circumstances in my life change, prompting me to look at certain Scriptures a more closely, I periodically realize that my analogies need to evolve. It’s an ongoing, lifelong process. All you need to realize is that it’s an unfolding process, and the developments in understanding will unfold on their own.

Commentaries on Romans 9:
http://www.freewill-predestination.com/romans9.html
http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles/romans_9.html

Christianity and Popular Culture – Part 3

2 Replies

In this series, we are looking at relationships between Christianity and popular culture. This post will consider references to Christianity in media that is basically secular. This relationship is sometimes found in political commentaries that express a favorable attitude toward Christianity. Also, you may find some movies which have Christian characters and dialogue, and seem favorable to Christianity overall, but are not marketed as Christian movies in an exclusive sense.

So, is this a good approach to popular culture? Should Christians support this kind of media by recommending it to others or financially contributing to organizations that produce it? Should Christians create such media online as a form of outreach? Well, that’s a decision for individuals to make, but in this post I want to highlight the potential advantages and disadvantages to consider when making that decision.

So, what are some advantages of such media? I think the biggest benefit is that you can get people thinking about Christianity and stimulate curiosity about what the Bible says. Some people are rather averse to attempts at religious proselytization, but this kind of media could introduce Christianity in a way that does not feel threatening. Another advantage is enabling Christians to have public influence in ways they ordinarily could not.

As for disadvantages, I think the biggest disadvantage is that, in order to portray Christianity in secular media, you have to make some starting assumptions about Christianity. Since you are not supposed to talk about religion in secular media, you have to frame religion in terms of something that you are allowed to talk about. For example, a typical starting assumption is that God is love, and that since most people want to believe in a God of love, you can present Christianity in a way that could appeal to everybody. Or, another starting assumption is that the Christianity causes people to live responsibly and is thus good for society as a whole, justifying a favorable attitude from the government. Or, another starting assumption is that the United States has historically been a Christian nation, so a favorable political stance toward Christianity is merely an attempt to stay true to the country’s founding principles.

So, let’s consider the starting assumption that God is love. To say that God is love – what does that mean? For me, to be comforted by that claim in and of itself, I would have to project my own ideas of what love is onto God. But where does the Bible fit into this? Instead of starting with the idea that God is love, my approach would be to consider what the Bible says about the plan of God for mankind, and then decide whether God is love or not. Suppose you did that and came to the conclusion that God is not love after all? What now? Well, I would step back and reconsider one’s interpretation of the Bible to see if there is another reasonable interpretation which takes all relevant Scriptures into account but leads to a more loving portrayal of God.

But obviously, this approach to Christianity is not suitable for secular media because it entails deep theological matters that not everybody could be expected to agree upon. When we introduce Christianity with certain starting assumptions, people tend to build upon those starting assumptions with their own ideas. But are the advantages of presenting Christianity in secular media greater than this disadvantage? That is for you to decide.

Now let’s consider the starting assumption that Christianity makes people responsible and is thus good for society as a whole. A potential consequence of this assumption is that it could diminish Christianity to a self-reform program or a social agenda. Now, I do believe in the power of Christ to change the lives of believers, but what is the process by which that happens? I think it is the result of faith in a spiritual process involving Christ’s death and resurrection, which I described in my series titled “Being a Real Christian.” This process is probably not a topic that could be portrayed in secular media.

Lastly, I want to consider the claim that the United States has historically been a Christian nation. This claim rests on historical observations of visible, public Christian influence. However, when using this observation to justify political agendas, there is the risk of reducing Christianity to a set of historically observable traits. But these historically observable traits are not a full representation of Biblical principles, so are these the elements that we want to brand Christianity with? That is for you to decide.

So, having read all of this, don’t get the idea that I am opposed to portrayals of Christianity in secular media. As I said earlier, there definitely are advantages to this approach to popular culture. But as with all approaches, some potential drawbacks exist, and you can decide for yourself whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

Christianity and Popular Culture – Part 2

Leave a reply

In this series, we are looking at different ways that Christians have approached secular pop culture. This post will examine the approach of watching secular media from a Christian perspective and comparing themes with Biblical principles. First off, what are the advantages of this approach to pop culture? The first advantage is that we do not have to shut ourselves away from all secular entertainment to avoid unbiblical influences. Human nature does not respond to blanket prohibitions very well (Romans 7), and insisting that Christians avoid secular entertainment altogether could intensify desires to see it, resulting in mental obsessions. Furthermore, Christians who create music, literature, or movies can advance their skills by incorporating stylistic elements from a wide range of sources.

The second advantage is that, by watching secular media with a Christian perspective in mind, we can blur the distinction between our recreational life and our spiritual life. 2 Corinthians 5:7 says to “walk by faith, not by sight.” If we think that we are closer to God when praying or reading the Bible, and farther from God when entertaining ourselves, then we are, to some extent, living by sight instead of faith, because we let activities we see ourselves doing influence how we perceive our relationship with God. As I described in Part 6 of my series “Being a Real Christian,” for those who understand the message of Romans, holiness is not about what we are doing as much as the focus of our minds. If, by looking at secular movies, music, or books, we can remind ourselves of certain Scriptures by comparing or contrasting themes with the Bible, our attention is pointed in the right direction.

So then, are there disadvantages to watching secular media with a Biblical mindset? Well, there are a couple risks if this approach is over relied on for spiritual development. The first is that our theological focus can become a bit shallow if we generalize Biblical themes to a level that can be demonstrated in secular media. The second potential problem is superfluously comparing secular media with the Bible. For instance, one could develop a tendency to see something in a movie, and then declare it Biblical or unbiblical based on certain Scriptures, without considering the deeper or more diverse perspectives expressed in the Bible itself.

The last potential disadvantage would be if a secular work has immoral content so pervasive that it could cause one’s mind to get obsessed with immorality.

In general though, as long as the approach is not overly relied on, I think that observing secular media from a Christian perspective is a good way that Christians can approach popular culture. In the next post, we will consider portrayals of Christianity within secular media itself.

Christianity and Popular Culture – Part 1

Leave a reply

I want to start a series of posts in which we will look at the subject of Christianity and popular culture. When I refer to popular culture in this article, I am referring to means of communication such as music, art, literature, movies, and social media. These forms of media are related to culture in that they represent (and in some cases influence) the views of people in society. From my observation, there are a variety of relationships between Christianity and popular culture, and they are described below:

    Christian perspective on secular media

This involves analyzing secular media to compare the values promoted with Biblical principles. The idea is that, by approaching media this way, you protect yourself from unbiblical influences while using popular media to remind yourself of Biblical principles.

    Christianity in secular media

This involves media that is basically secular; however, it contains favorable references to elements of Christianity or the Bible. Sometimes, political speeches and talk shows exhibit this relationship.

    Reinterpreting themes of secular media

This involves taking common themes of secular media, and framing them so that they fit with Biblical principles. The resulting media is not always explicitly Christian, but it aims to be Biblically compatible nonetheless. Contemporary Christian music is often an example of this relationship.

    Christian subculture

This involves media that is primarily marketed to Christians, intending to serve as an alternative to secular pop culture. Media in this category often attempts straightforward reinforcement of Biblical principles. Stylistic elements of such Christian media may be influenced by the secular counterparts, but thematic aspects are meant to be distinct. Christian music and movies may fall in either this category or the previous one.

So, in subsequent posts, I am going to analyze each relationship above, and discuss the advantages of each one, as well as possible problems they could cause if over-relied on. As always, feel free to comment with your own experiences.

Debates over Doctrine: It’s About More Than Who’s Right

Leave a reply

Over the centuries, numerous Christian theologians and ministers have tried to arrive at the correct interpretation of the Bible. Some have done so through systematic reasoning, and others have sought direct revelation from God. Among both groups, many different doctrinal positions exist on the same subjects. But there remains the notion in the minds of many Christians that, among all the different teachings out there, one of them is correct, and the goal is to find it, either by reasoning or revelation.

When someone thinks they have found the correct teaching, the natural response is to explain to other people why it is correct and refute arguments against it. However, if you have ever engaged in this yourself, you probably realize that the chance of the people you’re talking to saying, “That makes sense, I admit I was wrong” is pretty slim. If they ever say it, it’s probably years afterward. And there’s a reason why.

Underlying a person’s theology is an accumulation of life experiences. As much as one may try to have an unbiased reading of Scripture, because the Scriptures are not written like a systematic textbook, one’s personal experiences shape the interpretation. Even among those who claim spiritual revelation of the right interpretation, testimonies and doctrines vary considerably (although you’ll have to look beyond your particular branch of Christianity to see this), so apparently personal factors are still at play.

Thus, to tell someone that their doctrinal position is erroneous is essentially telling them that their life experiences have given them a faulty view of reality, and that’s hard to convince people of. Now, it is true that we all have limited knowledge and vision; our own lives do not tell the whole story of reality. But it is nearly impossible to acknowledge limitations in our conception of reality unless we actually experience that limitation firsthand.

It may be, that when we leave this life and gain a more comprehensive view of reality, we discover that the absolute truths about God, salvation, or life beyond this world, even things we considered fundamental to our faith, are different from what we had intellectually perceived in this life. But does this mean that efforts to correctly understand the Bible are futile, or that a certain interpretation is just as good as any alternative? I don’t think so.

Even if the absolute reality is beyond our comprehension, we can get core elements and principles right by studying the Bible carefully. Any sincere interpretation of the Bible contains some truth, as well as some deficiencies. Problems arise when people frame their lives around the deficiencies. Throughout church history, whenever new theological movements arose (such as the Protestant Reformation, the Great Awakenings, the Charismatic movement, etc.), the truths contained in those theologies dominated at first, leading adherents to think that the whole theology was Biblical. But what eventually happened to those movements (and what sometimes happens to Christian fundamentalism today) is that the “deficient” elements gained more prominence. But even though such theologies don’t seem to work for everyone and cause some people to leave Christianity altogether, adherents continue to promote everything in their theology because it worked in the past, and they assume the problem is with people today.

Now, I am NOT trying to say that we should modify our doctrines to fit the prevailing culture. Rather, I am suggesting that as times change, deficiencies in theologies, which always existed but were previously overlooked or diminished, can become more apparent, and I think churches should consider revisiting their doctrines to see if they can use the Bible to express truth more fully. The Bible is not as narrow-minded and intolerant as many people today think it is.

So, I think the goal of studying the Bible is to gain a more diversified perspective – to avoid getting overly fixated on certain subjects in a way that exaggerates misunderstandings, and to gain a perspective that contains more truth about reality than error. For me, the goal of theological debate is not to convince someone that he or she is wrong and I am 100% right. After two thousand years of doctrinal debates, how can I be sure I got everything right? Rather, the goal of debate is to convince the audience that my position is worth consideration. So, with doctrinal articles that I post online, I am not trying to prove opponents wrong, I just want for people passing by the internet, who are struggling to reconcile what their denomination has taught with their personal experience, to see another option to consider.

My Views on End-Times Matters

Leave a reply

I have decided not to do a long exposition on this subject because, for each of my key points, there are a lot of resources available online by famous authors. In this post, I just want to share what I consider to be the most reasonable interpretation of end-times prophecies based on my reading of the Bible and commentaries from various Christian eschatologies. I have combined what I feel are the best parts of different end-times doctrines. If you would like to discuss any of these points in greater detail, feel free to post a comment.

• I think that most prophecies of the Tribulation (including the war, destruction of the temple, and antichrist), were fulfilled during a war between the Jews and the Romans during 63-70 A.D. The antichrist was most likely the Roman General Titus who led the attack on Jerusalem (Daniel 7:24-25 & 9:24-27, Matthew 24, Luke 21). In a general sense, the Tribulation and spirit of the antichrist have continued up to the present day (1 John 4:3, Luke 21:24). See my notes at the end about the Tribulation.

• We are currently living in an era known as the “times of the Gentiles” (Luke 21:24, Romans 11:25-56). This era was not known to the Old Testament prophets, which is why many Biblical prophesies skip over it.

• The present age will conclude with a literal rapture in which all believers are caught up to the celestial realms (1 Thess. 4:13-18). There is no world event to signal that the rapture is near; it will happen at a seemingly ordinary, peaceful time (1 Thess. 5:1-3, Matthew 24:36-41).

• After the Rapture, there will be a brief period of catastrophic events on the Earth (possibly lasting only a few days or weeks – “as in the days of Noah”) (1 Thess. 5:3, Matthew. 24:36-41).

• After this brief crisis phase, Jesus will return to earth to establish a new Kingdom in the world, centered in Israel. Nations will be judged to determine their circumstances at the start of this new era (Matthew 25).

Notes:
The majority view in Christianity is that the Tribulation is a future period of time, and that the events of the Tribulation are described in the Book of Revelation. This view is expressed in the writing of Futurist commentators such as Hal Lindsey, Tim Lahaye, and Robert Gundry. My reasons for thinking the Tribulation took place in the first century are too complicated to explain in this brief post, but if you’re interested let me know and I’ll write in more detail about it. My reasoning on the Tribulation mostly follows the Preterist rationale although I do not agree with Preterists’ allegorical view of Christ’s Second Coming.

Also, regarding the Book of Revelation, I do not agree with the Preterists that Revelation is prophesying about first-century events in particular. I feel that Revelation has many indications of symbolic literature (though still of Divine revelation). Revelation also came from an ancient culture which had its own symbolic meanings for imagery and numbers. I tend to think that Revelation is a depiction of the spiritual warfare taking place in this age, using symbolic imagery that first-century readers would have understood.

Christians who believe in the Divine inspiration of the Bible often have the motto “literal if possible” to describe their approach to Scripture. I believe in this approach if a book establishes itself as a historical or practical work. For instance, the Four Gospels and the Book of Acts are historical commentaries on the life of Jesus and the apostolic ministry to show the world why Jesus is the Messiah. The epistles are a combination of expository theological writing and practical writing to deal with everyday issues in the Church. Obviously, these writings are meant to be taken literally as much as possible. However, Revelation, right from the start, establishes itself as a very different kind of writing, and I’m not sure that “literal if possible” still applies.

Having said that, I do not advise approaching Revelation with an imaginative mentality as if it’s a fairy tale. If there is a symbolic meaning, it would have to be spiritually revealed to a person. For an example of what a serious, spiritual meaning might look like, you can read J Preston Eby’s “Revelation Series” at http://www.kingdombiblestudies.org.

Lastly, I should emphasize that I do not rule out the possibility of anything happening in the future, including the events of Revelation literally playing out. If the Futurist commentators are right about world events, that doesn’t disprove anything in this article. The difference for me is that I don’t live in expectation of those events, and if they happen, that may or may not mean that the Bible prophesied them.

So, that’s my overview on Bible prophesy. Like I said earlier, if there is anything you would like to discuss in more detail, let me know and I’ll either give some more writing of my own or give links to other material.

Some Thoughts on National Morality

Leave a reply

I finished the series of posts on what being a real Christian means, and I feel that a good follow-up topic would be a subject of much discussion among Evangelicals today, which is whether the United States as a whole is turning away from Biblical morality and will face various crises as a result. Now, before we start, I should mention that this is not a political essay or a commentary on current events.

I think that Romans Chapters 1 and 2 have a lot of relevance to the subject of national morality. Here’s Romans 1: 28-32:

“And since they [Gentile pagans] did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done. They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. They know God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die—yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them.”

Sound familiar? You have probably heard of many people and places in the U.S. today where those characteristics are found. Preachers may cite Hollywood, social liberals, public schools, college fraternities, and so on. Basically, it’s the so-called worldly people. But at the opening of Romans 2, Paul turns the tables against the churchgoing culture:

2:1-4: “Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things. You say, “We know that God’s judgment on those who do such things is in accordance with truth.” Do you imagine, whoever you are, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God?”

I think that passage is supposed to make Christians say, “Huh? How can you say I do the same things as ___? When was the last time you saw me in a sexy music video? I’ve never committed murder. I’ve never said anything blasphemous about God; I don’t even use His name in exclamatory outbursts. You think I’m proud and boastful? I’m not the one with expensive cars or clothes. And envy? Good grief, I’m still happy with my flip phone!”

Well, the problem with those self-justifications is that Biblical morality, especially in the New Testament, goes beyond outwards acts. Furthermore, many passages challenge Christians to ask themselves whether their lifestyle indicates that they are true believers in the first place as there are both sins of commission and sins of omission (James 4:13-17, 1 John 3:17). I do acknowledge that there are Christian who genuinely live out Biblical morality, both internally and externally. If your conscience testifies that you are at least sincerely trying to live according to Scripture in every aspect of life (Rom. 2:15), then what I am about to say does not apply to you.

Paul wrote in Romans 2 that “in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself . . . do you imagine, whoever you are, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God?”

As for me, my conscience does not assure me that, if the nation were to fall because of its deeds, that I would be spared because of my deeds. I’m a rather introspective person, and I have seen things within myself that do not go over too well with certain Scriptures. Although my sins of commission may not be too long, my sins of omission is probably a longer list. This is why, I personally cannot say that the country will decline because of its deeds. If I say that, I am predicting the same fate for myself. This is not a matter of national unity. If I say that some guy in New Zealand will lose God’s protection because of sins in his life, I’m saying that I myself will lose God’s protection.

Now, if you’ve read the Bible carefully and your conscience tells you that you really are living as the Bible instructs, then you have truly overcome the world, and you have the right to say anything you want about it. You can count on God’s blessing regardless of what happens around you. Some of you out there have reached this point. But what about people like myself, and probably many of you as well, who are not so sure that we make the cut? Is our fate tied to the United States? Well, I believe it doesn’t have to be that way, and there is a special message in the Book of Romans for such people, which is what I wrote about in my “Being a Real Christian” series.

When we come to realize how Christ died and rose again not only as a substitutionary atonement but also to set us free from sin’s control over our lives, and we ask God to help us experience this freedom, it is like God sets us apart from the world and starts a special process in us. Sometimes, intermediate steps involve having certain problems when other people aren’t (Hebrews 12:6-8). But, it’s all about helping us learn deeper truths about life and becoming what we were made to be. And at this point, our future is not tied to any nation.

So, then, if I am neither an optimist nor a pessimist regarding nation affairs, is there a framework to pray for the country? I believe there is, although I do not pray with complete faith that any temporal event will happen or not happen. After all, 2 Corinthians 4:4 refers to Satan as the god of this world (2 Cor. 4:4), which I take to mean that neither myself nor God can directly force a change in circumstances in a way that bypasses human correspondence. So, I instead pray with faith that, in some way, there will be individuals who experience God’s redemptive processes and come to know the freedom that they can experience in Christ. I do also pray about temporal events as God’s guidance can sometimes influence people in authority (1 Timothy 2:1-3), but my faith is not hinged on any course of events.

Thus, my focus is on individuals rather than the abstract concept of a nation. I want for individuals to be able to gain new insights on life and the Christian faith, so that some people who previously rejected Christianity may see it with new lenses, and that some people who are already believers may gain a deeper perspective that will help them in life, and that regardless of what national events occur, God’s work in these ways will be carried out for certain people. Although I cannot know what will happen to the “nation,” I do know that every day there are people who come into the Christian faith, and Christians who gain new insights from resources made available by preachers and authors, and I pray that this work of God will continue moving forward. As Christ himself said (Matt. 7:7), “search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you.”

Being a Real Christian – Part 7

Leave a reply

I want to conclude this series by talking about an often quoted passage from Romans 10.

Romans 10:9-13: “If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For one believes with the heart and so is justified, and one confesses with the mouth and so is saved. The scripture says, ‘No one who believes in him will be put to shame.’ For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and is generous to all who call on him. For, ‘Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.’”

This passage is where the concept of a “Sinner’s Prayer” comes from, that is, the teaching that one is saved by praying to God and making these proclamations of faith. However, some Christians have objected to the idea, saying that you cannot be assured of your salvation simply because you have said a prayer. They say that you must also demonstrate genuine repentance.

That could be a valid objection if you are only seeing the surface meaning of the Scripture above. However, what I have come to believe is that the passage has a deeper meaning, and if you believe the deeper meaning underlying those words, then that prayer is indeed enough to give assurance of salvation.

First, while the concept of confessing Jesus as Lord is often seen as pledging allegiance to His will for our lives, it could also be seen as placing our trust in Him to work in us “to will and to work” (Phil. 2:13), believing that He will operate in us to ensure that our attitudes and actions progressively conform to His will. Next, the part about believing in one’s heart that God “raised him from the dead,” alludes back to Chapters 6-8 in which Paul describes how we should believe in the power of Christ’s resurrection over our own lives to set us free from sin’s bondage. This goes beyond simply acknowledging that a miracle happened 2,000 years ago.

Paul writes, “No one who believes in him will be put to shame . . . for ‘everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.’” This is the ultimate assurance that if we sincerely ask God to bring us into this transformation through Christ, we cannot mess up our salvation. We can rest assured that, regardless of what phase of the journey we are in now, we are undergoing a transformative process to become what God has made us to be.

Being a Real Christian – Part 6

Leave a reply

Romans 8 opens with the statement that “there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.”

One important thing to note is that in the original Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, the books were not divided into chapters or verses. Thus, the statement that “there is no condemnation” was meant to be in the same context as the struggle with sin described at the end of Chapter 7. I think Paul wanted readers to see that we are free from condemnation even when there are problems that we have not yet overcome.

Verses 5-6 state, “Those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.”

Verse 9: “But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit, since the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.”

Verses 12-13: “So then, brothers and sisters, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh— for if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.”

I think it’s important to consider what it means to “put to death the deeds of the body” by the Spirit in order to have life. At first, this may sound like an admonishment to try harder to stop committing sins. However, I think Romans 7 shows how, in some cases, ramping up the effort to live right can actually keep us stuck in bad habits because inward rebellion is stimulated in response to the righteous effort. Thus, I think that, where Romans is concerned, living according to the flesh versus the Spirit isn’t so much about what we are doing, but rather, what is the focus of our minds. The point is that our minds should be focused on freedom from sinful habits, believing that the new life given to us through Christ’s death and resurrection has the power to change our lives as the Holy Spirit works in us.

So, I’ll get back to the question, “Should we continue trying to avoid sin?” I think it comes down to this: What are our efforts, or lack of efforts, doing to the focus of our minds? Ultimately, it is only by the Holy Spirit that certain problems can be overcome in our lives. And deliverance can be a process rather than an instantaneous event. Many spiritual Christians have taught the importance of patience in waiting for prayers to be answered. Although that principle is not often put in a context of personal morality, I think Romans gives us reason to make that extension. In Romans 4, Paul describes the faith of Abraham, who believed in God’s promise to give him descendants even though his and Sarah’s bodies were dead where reproduction was concerned. Paul wrote that God “gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist” (4:17). When that promise was given, Abraham and Sarah were powerless to fulfill that promise. Even if they had tried to act, it would not have succeeded. They were too old. Likewise, we can try to do what’s right, but our efforts don’t work unless we are spiritually enabled to follow through.

In 1 Corinthians 3:1-3, Paul wrote,
“And so, brothers and sisters, I could not speak to you as spiritual people, but rather as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for solid food. Even now you are still not ready, for you are still of the flesh. For as long as there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not of the flesh, and behaving according to human inclinations?”

Paul wrote that the Corinthians were still “of the flesh . . . behaving according to human inclinations.” However, Paul refers to them as “brothers and sisters,” which clearly indicates they were justified and genuinely in the faith. Spiritually, they were in a situation similar to Abraham’s physical situation. But if we trust in the power of Christ’s death and resurrection to set us free, we can know that our time is coming to grow out of the problems in our lives even if currently we do not feel that power working.

If we are trying to change ourselves, and see that our efforts are not working and are simply causing frustration, that frustration takes our attention away from trusting in the Spirit to set us free and puts the spotlight back on the problems in our lives. If that’s the case, we might need to concede the failing efforts, trust in the Spirit’s power to ultimately set us free, and wait until we receive the empowerment to tackle certain issues.

If we realize that we don’t have to change ourselves to be right with God, we become free to conduct an honest examination of ourselves, rather than feeling like we have to twist the data to make it look like we’re meeting a certain standard. When we get a clearer view of what is going on inside of us, we may see why our efforts to change ourselves aren’t working. We can try to create new approaches to solving problems in our lives that better reflect our individual psychology. Ultimately, God may empower us to overcome issues by leading us into this kind of wisdom.

What we should avoid is the situation in which we sense that we realistically have the willpower and strength to make certain changes, but we force ourselves to override our conscience because we want zero pain. In that situation, we are steering our attention away from deliverance and back towards sin. When Paul instructs readers to avoid giving in to sin, I think this is what he is talking about.

I believe there are two mentalities that should be contrasted: A mentality of law, and a mentality of licentiousness. The mentality of law says, “You must do xyz. No buts, no ifs, no debates. JUST DO IT!” The mentality of licentiousness says, “Forget about xyz, there’s no need for change in your life. You can define your own ideals.” Grace, however, acknowledges that we should be subject to God’s will. However, grace (unlike Law) allows us to be realistic about what we can and cannot do. Grace is not lenient; rather, it has the transformative power to bring our lives closer to God’s will. Biblical grace could be likened to chemical reactions, combustion, radiation, etc. When you come to see this, you can see that pejorative terms like “cheap grace” are completely irrelevant. Also, phrases like a “license to sin” become irrelevant because if you are free from Law, there is no need for a license, for a license gives you permission to do something that the law normally forbids. The only reason you need a driver’s license is because there is a law that says you cannot drive without one.

Ultimately, any power to make a change in our lives comes from God. I believe that for some Christians, due to either psychological traits that God designed them to have, or a special working of the Holy Spirit within them, they can apply heavy self-discipline and actually get the desired results because they have some sort of power that many of us do not have. I think that there are even non-Christians who have this inherent ability as I alluded to in Parts 2-3 of this series. For some people, this is the only way that they can understand obedience because they are not experiencing the limitations of willpower. These people can live by the principle that the Apostle James outlined (that faith without works is dead). They show their faith in God by consistently doing what the Holy Spirit convicts them that they should do.

But what can happen is that over time, temptations build up, and they get tired of persevering to live right. But they do not understand the message of grace and transformation outlined in Romans, so they resort to a mentality of licentiousness and disregard Biblical virtues. I think that it is possible for salvation to be lost, and this is where it might occur.

However, I believe if we come to realize that we cannot change ourselves through our willpower and energy, and are trusting in God to help us experience freedom from sin through the power of Christ’s death and resurrection, we cannot mess up our salvation. Furthermore, I believe we are living in a state of continual repentance by believing these things even if we have not verbally confessed every act of sin. It is at this point that we are justified apart from our present works. We have left our lives in God’s hands, and we can be assured that He will operate in us so that we will be saved when our lives are evaluated.