State of the Church

Where is the charismatic church and where should it be going?

Archive for April, 2008

The Shepherding Movement

Posted by thinkingriddles on April 24, 2008

This is one of the most important and most controversial chapters in the recent history of the church. If you are charismatic, then whether you know it or not, your church and movement were impacted by either accepting or rejecting Shepherding teachings.

Here is the basic context. At the height of the cultural revolution of the 1960s, some hippies started getting saved. Soon, through the powerful anointing on Lonnie Frisbee and the organizational skills of Chuck Smith, this became a major movement now known as the Jesus People or Jesus Movement. The Spirit of God literally swept the youth of the nation from coast to coast as kids who had left their parents for “freedom” found it wasn’t all that it was cracked up to be.

In this context, a group of older, more experienced charismatic ministers came together to bring a corrective. The occasion of their meeting was a moral failure of a ministry in Fort Lauderdale, FL. Believing themselves to be equally vulnerable to moral failure apart from better accountability they mutually submitted themselves to one another. When this happened, they described themselves as having a supernatural experience binding their ministries together for life. Initially the group was made of Derek Prince, Don Basham, Bob Mumford, and Charles Simpson. Eventually, former Branham campaign manager Ern Baxter was added to the group, and they became known as “The Fort Lauderdale Five.”

The five very talented men immediately began to teach on authority, submission and discipleship. Although there were a number of important doctrines, the central doctrine—the one that reshaped the church—was that every person must be submitted to another person (Shepherd/Pastor/Discipler), and that all of your major life decisions should be submitted to this person. Effectively, if unintentionally, this put the individual in the position of having two masters– Jesus and a personal shepherd. With time the personal shepherd gains more power, as Jesus gets less. And in time, this creates a system where those who have unquestioning obedience to man are promoted. All kinds of ungodly things came in through these doors. Several books have been written detailing the kinds of abuse suffered as a result. The scary thing about the whole system is that it started out with the intent of promoting accountability, and eventually enslaved people.

When someone says “Who is your covering?” They are asking the basic Shepherding question. Ironically, Jesus was asked this same question by the Pharisees: “By what authority do you do these things?” His ministry was not submitted to them, and they didn’t like that so they tried to shut him down, but the work of the Spirit was the validation of His ministry. Paul deals with the issue more theologically when he says “the head of woman is man, the head of man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God.” The covering for a man of God is Christ himself, and the covering for a (married) woman is her husband.

The second dangerous doctrine had to do with “Covenant” relationships or “Spiritual Family.” If being absolutely submitted to another person was an imprisonment, then the covenant relationship was the iron padlock on the door. The idea here is that when you enter into these discipleship relationships, they are permanent, and more broadly that your association with a specific group of believers is permanent. You were in a “Covenant” and if you left the relationship or the fellowship group, you were breaking a covenant. This quickly becomes a very dangerous situation: no matter how terrible your experience becomes with a group or person, you can not leave, and if you do, you believe that you’ve broken a covenant with God, so to get right with God you’d have to go back to the abuse! You slowly become enmeshed with the other members of the group and separated from the outside world. Your “spiritual family” becomes more important than your natural family or other believers you’ve had relationship with. You slowly become more and more isolated and more and more dependent upon the group or leader. At a certain point if your leaders do not check the pattern, it becomes a full fledged cult. Normally, however this pattern is held in tension with Biblical expectations so these groups rarely become true cults, while still exhibiting cult-like features. Scary.

After a couple of years, the fruit of these doctrines became obvious to those outside of the movement such as Jack Hayford, Pat Robertson, Demos Sharkarian and others, and they confronted the “Five” in the infamous “Shootout at the Curtis Hotel,” in 1975. The result was that the Five issued an “apology” which did not really represent repentance on their part. They rejected the excesses of some who had followed their teachings to their logical conclusions, without accepting that the doctrines they were teaching had been the direct cause.  Their persistence created a split in the charismatic movement between those who accepted the authority teaching, and those who did not.

This split is still evident today but under different names. No one dares be associated with the “Shepherding Movement” by name because it was so discredited.  But many still believe in the basic principles to some degree or another, and find support in classic authors such as Watchman Nee. The “Prophetic” stream of the church became the branch of the church that did not accept authority teachings, and the “Apostolic” branch became that which did. The tragedy is that the basic observations of the Five were correct (i.e. need for discipleship, accountability) but their solution of hierarchical personal submission was not. Therefore the “prophetic” stream still tends to reflect the lack of authority that the rebellious hippies brought into the church through the Jesus Movement. Chaos in the meeting is welcomed and even praised as spiritual, and generally everyone does their own thing, hears from God totally in isolation, etc. On the other hand, those with the Shepherding heritage value “order” over all else. While they speak in tongues and claim to be charismatic, often in practice, the gifts of the Spirit, especially prophecy are not welcomed, because order is valued over the moving of the Spirit.  Or prophecy can only come through an established authority in the church hierarchy.

In summary, the Shepherds were right right to raise the issue of authority, but they were wrong about submission to other men. Christ is Lord of all, and each should be in submission to Him by the conviction of the Holy Spirit.  Because we need order and peace, we should submit to those who lead ministries over us just like we would to our bosses at work.  But this is far different from owing them allegiance in our personal or spiritual lives. And when we come to the place where following them violates our conscience, it’s time to move on.

Posted in Shepherding Movement, State of the Church | 22 Comments »

Best Worship Albums

Posted by thinkingriddles on April 24, 2008

Finding powerful worship albums is not that easy.   You need a combination of great songwriting/selection, strong musicianship, hunger and responsiviness to the presence of God.   Some worshipers are strong on one but weak on others.    There are a lot of great worshipers in the Kansas City stream that tune into the presence of God, but it’s so free form that the music suffers a bit.    On other hand, more typical is sacrificing the presence for perfection.  Israel Houghton may be an example of this.    If he would let the Spirit flow just a little more, I think his music would live up to its reputation.    So here are my personal “must own” albums:

Hillsong

Every discussion of worship music must start with Hillsong.  Their music has completely redefined the genre, while everyone else runs to catch up.   They have dozens of albums, most of which are better than almost any album by anyone else, however a few stand out for me:

1.   You are my World — This album flows so well, and leads into some very powerful worship songs like “All of my Days”, “You Are My World”, “Worthy Is The Lamb.”   I actually played this album almost continuously for a year.

2.  Savior King — After several albums that were great, that had amazing moments but didn’t quite hit the same peak as “You Are My World”, Hillsong came out with “Savior King.”   It’s hard to believe how many songs with deep lyrics and poignant moments are on this album.   Some of my favorites are “Hosanna”, “In Your Freedom”, and “Here In My Life.”

CFNI and Friends

A few years ago the Christ for the Nation Institute in Dallas put together a worship team including Rick Pino, Klaus Keuhn, and Kari Jobe and they struck gold.    The two CFNI albums with this team together are very very good, and so are the DVD that come with them.

1.  Glorious — This was the first and maybe better of the two.  My favorite on this album is “Running” especially on DVD.  She’s bringing this deep from the heart and you can feel it.

2.  Overtaken — I love to watch the first song on this DVD, “The Lord Reigns” I get freedom just watching the girl in the back jump for joy in the Lord’s presence.   There is a series of songs at the end that get’s really deep and intimate, and will take you into some very deep worship, including “Alabaster Jar” and “My Romance”

3.  Extraordinary (ORU) — This may be more personal preference, but I really like this album.  It has a number of songs including “Heal Me” and “This is our God” which only appear here, and bring a specific anointing with them.    Kari Jobe appears on this album

In addition to these few, Klaus Keuhn has two major albums, Kari Jobe has a small album, and Rick Pino has two major albums.  Each of these are good in their own right.  Rick’s stuff is very intense so even as intense as I am, I can’t listen to it continously, but when you are ready for intensity it’s some really good stuff.

Kansas City and Friends

There are individual songs I like by various musicians of this stream including Jason Upton ( who really is best live), the Morningstar worship guys, Joann McFatter, and others.  However of the ones I know about, as an album, the one that really stands out:

1.  We Cry Out – Jesus Culture.  This album brings the passion of Kansas City together with structure.   The entire album is really great, but the Kim Walker songs  are off the charts.  They are very intense “Go after God with everything” kind of songs.

Fred Hammond

Not everyone who didn’t grow up in the traditionally black chuch is able to enjoy black gospel, but most people who have some musical breadth can really enjoy Fred Hammond.  He is the Hillsong of black gospel music.  Entirely in a category of his own.  In particular, when he was paired with Radical for Christ (RFC) every album they did was outstanding.  Often very rich lyrics, rich complex music, and the anointing.   It’s really hard to choose some over others but here are my two favorites:

1.   Pages of Life — This Two disc set, especially disc one is really strong.  There are strong, warfare/faith builders as well as deep, comtemplative worship songs.  May be “best of genre”

2.   Spirit of David — This is a great album.  Again, great lyrics with outstanding musicianship.

Black Gospel

Running out of energy, but here are a few more goodies:  Keith Staten did two great Praise&Worship albums.    John P Kee’s, “Strength” is a great album that you can play all the way through.   Winans Phase Two had one album that was outstanding.   Hezekiah walker has a number of albums, but Live In Atlanta is probably best.  Full Gospel Baptist Fellowship Mass Choir second album has a couple of very powerful songs.   Lakewook did two great albums.    The old  Commissioned stuff can be good too.  In it’s day those guys really touched the black church.

Posted in State of the Church | 4 Comments »

The Trinity

Posted by riddlej on April 16, 2008

The Trinity is one of the most foundational doctrines of Christianity and yet one of the hardest. It seems to involve a paradox: one God, three Persons. How can that be? How do we escape tritheism without nullifying the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit?

The paradox is ancient. The Early Christians had many heretics who professed doctrines which either avowed tritheism or stole deity from the Second and Third persons of the Trinity. Even before the Early Christians, Neo-Platonists had grappled with the philosophical problem of The One and The Many… How can human beings, who are many, have a portion of the Divine Mind, which is only One? Plotinus and others proposed all kinds of strange solutions which you can see in Hinduism, Buddhism, Monism, and New Age today.

And yet, the Trinity is woven throughout Scripture. It is first hinted at in the OT and then more specifically revealed in the NT.

TEXTUAL SUPPORT

There are great websites that give all the Scriptures for proof of the Trinity and go into the nature (role) of the Holy Spirit, who is probably least understood. So I will not go into all that here. I’ll just say that In the OT, the Trinity can be put together empirically but it is not altogether obvious because of the limited yet progressive revelation of who God is. He is not “Father” yet, and revelation of who He is is increasingly needed by the post-Babel era. By the time Moses is delivering the Israelites, he seems to be introducing Yahweh all over again to the common man. With this in mind, we have to take the clues wherever we can find them. The first clue, however, is fortunately found in Genesis 1 where God is creating but so is the Spirit hovering over the waters. Clearly two separate agents. If you add in the NT counsel on the subject, Jesus was actually the Living Word that mediated the heavenly becoming physical in the beginning (John 1). We already know that before the foundation of the world, Jesus was slain. And that all things were made “by Him and for Him.” So clearly His agency is present at Genesis as well.

Assuming that you don’t need proof of the Father’s persona in the OT, other appearances of the Holy Spirit’s divinity and separate agency in OT include each time that “the Spirit” comes upon someone. The Spirit falls on Saul, causing him to prophesy so that everyone asks if he is among the Prophets. The Spirit falls on Samson, causing him to knock down the Philistine’s temple. The Spirit fills Isaiah’s mouth when he is burned by the coal, to prophesy. And Ezekiel acknowledges the Spirit’s filling when he sees his visions. These are all explicit mentions in the Scripture of the Spirit. Other implicit mentions are David’s psalm and worship, Solomon’s supreme wisdom, and the prophecies of the other Major and Minor Prophets.

So where, you ask, is Jesus? While Jews refuse to acknowledge Jesus as Messiah, the truth is that from a NT perspective, you can see Jesus throughout the OT. Remember that Jesus Himself walked with the disciples from Emmaus and told them where He could be found in the Scriptures (which were only OT Scriptures at that time, no NT yet!). So if Jesus found Himself there, we know He is there. Specifically, Jesus might have pointed out His being the fourth man in the fiery furnace with Daniel and his friends. He might have said He was the angel Jacob wrestled with who blessed Him. He might have said He was the commander of the army who came to Joshua and asked him to fight on the Lord’s side. He certainly was the suffering servant described by Isaiah.

So it is clear that these Three Persons of the Trinity do show up in the OT if you look carefully. It isn’t eisegeting the text, it is actually making sense of it. A great example of this is David’s psalm which begins, “The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.” How is one to interpret this unless there is counsel in the Godhead? (see Mark 2:35-37 where Jesus interprets this passage.) More importantly, the Trinity is alluded to in one of the most foundational Jewish Scriptures, the Shm’ah… “Hear O Israel, the Lord your God is one.” While the verse professes God is one, the word for “God” is Elohim, which is plural. So in some sense it reads, “Hear O Israel, the Lord (singular) your Gods (plural) is One.” Interesting contradiction right in the Scripture, right? And this is no hand-waving verse.

When you get to the NT, the examples are more noticeable. First of all, Jesus is clearly on earth doing the will of His Father in heaven. He communes with Him, prays to Him, and confesses to Him all while He is ministering so we know the Father and Jesus are two separate agents coexisting at the same time. Moreover, God is clear that He has given all authority to His son, which is why we worship Him alone and confess He is Lord. So from the Father’s own mouth, we know Jesus is divine.

There are also several instances where Jesus and the Holy Spirit are seen together as agents, such as when Jesus blows on His disciples and says, Receive Ye the Holy Spirit. Also when the Holy Spirit impregnates Mary, begetting Jesus (Lk. 1:30). And when Jesus was led into the wilderness by the Spirit to be tempted of the devil. But perhaps one of the most startling acknowledgments of the Spirit’s divinity and personhood is Jesus’ warning that those who blaspheme Him will be forgiven but those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit will not (Lk. 12:8).

Some instances acknowledge the pair of the Father and the Spirit, such as when the disciples are praying in the upper room (to the Father) and the Holy Spirit in response fills their room with the wind and tongues of fire. Another acknowledgment is where Jesus tells us that the Father gives good gifts and will give us the Holy Spirit if we ask Him. This is important because it specifically says the origin of the Holy Spirit is the Father himself. The Spirit is therefore both divine and separate (something He can give). There are other Scriptures where the Spirit falls, fills, or is given, proving this statement.

But several instances in the NT make all three divine agents clear… such as Jesus’ baptism. When Jesus is submerged in the Jordan by John the Baptist, heaven is opened and the Father’s voice is heard. Then the Spirit is visibly seen in the form of a dove descening from heaven down upon Jesus. Very clearly three divine agents all at the same moment, witnessed by onlookers. Another moment is where Jesus explains that it is better that He go so another may come. He says, “When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me (Jn 15.26).” The agency of Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit is very distinct, very divine, and very personal. But perhaps the most prominent verse of Scripture that acknowledges the Trinity is the Great Commission where we are told to baptize in the name (singular) of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This is like the Christian’s Shm’ah… no handwaving Scripture.

STRUCTURAL SUPPORT

Besides compelling Scripture verses and narratives, there are structural reasons why Christianity reflects the Trinity. By structural, I mean aspects that are built into the way God sovereignly decided to design the universe. we don’t know why, He just did it that way.

For example, OT law makes it clear that three witnesses are God’s style.  A cord of three strands cannot be broken (Eccl. 4:12).   Three ancestors populate the post-Flood world.  Three angels visit Abraham to tell him he will have a son.  Three festivals are commanded by Moses for the Lord to meet with all the people, three times a year.  Three cities are established as places of refuge.  Two lampstands bear witness of the Lord’s presence (the third witness) outside the Temple.  Three men are thrown into the fiery furnace.  The NT corroborates by saying by the mouths of two or three witnesses will a matter be established (Mt. 18:16, 1 Tim 5:19).    Three wise men establish Jesus’ birth to the Gentile world.  Three disciples witness Jesus’ transfiguration.  Two witnesses testify of the Lord (the third witness) in the Last Days.  There is something about the triune nature of witnesses to an event that God has sovereignly decided will be built into the structure of the universe… probably as an apologetic that He actually exists and will verify His will to be done.  In other words, there are “legal” reasons why God develops a Trinity… before the world, there were no human witnesses, but the Holy Spirit and Jesus were with God before the foundations of the world and witnessed His will.  So by the “mouth” of Three Witnesses, the ultimate Matters were established.

Not only did the Trinity witness creation, but they actually counseled it.  Jesus and the Holy Spirit were present at creation, participating and counseling with the Father. This is important because the entire basis of Christianity is the understanding that we are being reconciled to God to participate with Him and His Kingdom.  Our part (in Christ) is analogous to His part in the beginning; we are supposed to be creating His Kingdom (in a second-hand sense) and counseling with Him, receiving Him like a Father.  The relational aspect of the Trinity then is the way we know it is ok (even God’s will) to have a relationship with the Father. Indeed, the relational worldview of Christians– to God and others– is probably the defining characteristic that separates Christianity from all other religions in the world.

Another “legal” thing written into God’s design is the idea of covenant. God’s covenants with His people were always in three parts: the words (promises, terms); the blood (sacrifice); and the seal (assurance). Every time covenantal language comes up in the Old Testament–Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David–there are the words, the blood, and the seal. Three things. And by the time we get to Jesus and His new covenant, it is still evident: the Father’s words/terms (promise of eternal life, our confession that Jesus is Lord and risen from the dead); His blood (spilled on the cross); and the seal of the Holy Spirit. The Trinity in action. The Trinity, in essence, makes the covenant work.

Posted in Practical Theology | Leave a Comment »

Works

Posted by riddlej on April 15, 2008

I recently got delivered from works.  At the request of a friend, I thought I’d reflect a little.

Ever since I got saved, I knew I was saved by grace and not by works.  Not anything I had done (except refusing to believe) had kept me from Christ.  And nothing i did (except agreeing to believe) had gotten me in.  I knew my good works were like “filthy rags” before God and I was not supposed to be proud of them.  But I also knew God expected His children to do good works for some sort of heavenly reward and because they demonstrated the love of Jesus to the lost on earth.

And yet, I was still in works.

I didn’t really know it until I got out.  Now that I am out, I see that my works mentality was closely related to people-pleasing.  I felt trapped by other people, by their appraisals and emotions.  I didn’t want to make anybody upset, I never wanted to disagree.  Of course I did at times, but I hated it every second because of the conflict it caused.  Especially within my family where the stakes were high.  Having my mom mad at me–or knowing I had caused her grief–was earth shattering, and so was disappointing my husband.  I felt constrained by my extended family too, like I had to keep them happy but they never were.  And I tried to be as agreeable as possible with others, at least on the outside.  It wasn’t like I didn’t think for myself as much as it was that I always weighed the cost of expressing what I felt/thought.

This ended up being my god.  In the name of agreeableness (or submission, when it came to my husband), I kept bending what I wanted to what others wanted.  Not when it was immoral, but at least on the little things if not the big.  Then I had kids, and I started bending to them. First I bended in all the areas moms naturally have to: yielding your body, breasts, sleep, cleanliness, schedule.  Then my boundaries were gone and I bended everywhere else.  After seeing how emotional babies and toddlers were, and how much resolve it took to teach them things, I didn’t want to discipline them because I didn’t want to make them cry.  I didn’t want to deprive them of things they wanted, or let them have things that I wanted only in moderation, because I didn’t want to disappoint them later on.  I hated even asking them to clean up at night.  It’s not that I never did these things, because I knew such and such were good standards, but I did them always with a bit in my mouth and always oversensitive to the emotional responses that I knew would follow.  I felt like I was letting people down 24/7, and that I was stuck in the Bad Cop role I’d never signed up to follow.

Eventually I got to the point where I didn’t know what I wanted.  I didn’t know whether I wanted to homeschool anymore, to move to a certain city, to find a new church, to start a new life.  I didn’t even know what restaurant I wanted to go to for lunch!  I had lost myself, first on the outside and then on the inside.  I seemed normal to everybody else but I wasn’t.  I felt hollow.

About this time, I listened to the Jim Richards’ series on Works Righteouness.  And it revolutionized my life.  I also read the Boundaries series (by Cloud and Townsend) and found the section on boundaries in marriage and children especially helpful.  I read “From Bondage to Bonding” and repented of codependent thinking.  I began trying to separate myself from others’ opinions, even God’s, and trying to find a healthy balance between submission and self-expression.  The expression piece was especially difficult because I didn’t want to be a reactionary person, a feminist, a self-rights enthusiast.  I didn’t want to trade oversensitivity to my family for insensitivity.  Nor did I even know who I was anymore, to argue for the things “I wanted.”  I realized that only God knew who I was supposed to be and what pieces of myself that were fractured needed to be put back together again into His vision for me.

Another challenge was the fact that I am naturally an introvert.  Telling someone, as Jim Richards did, that “faking” a good image is worse than having a bad one but being honest about it–was incredibly difficult to believe.  As a child who faked it well, when my parents were arguing or dealing with chronic illnesses, I prospered.  I got good grades, had great friends, enjoyed great opportunities.  Never mind the fact that I was depressed on the inside, suicidal, fearful, anxious, insecure, and obsessed with body image.  At least I was at the top of my class, well-liked, and going to a great college!  Then as an adult and seeing the virtues of “keeping things rolling” when my husband was uncertain, my kids were crabby, and my family was disapproving, faking it just became habitual.  Besides, I was supposed to be thankful and happy as a Christian… what good would complaining do?  I had gone a long time being a phony but enjoying the peace it kept.

Then, as a genuine introvert, I didn’t even process things well when other people were around and life was rolling along.  Only when I had time by myself—falling asleep, going out, taking a short vacation—did I get the sense that something was wrong.  I felt so “alive” when I left home, and so confused when I spent the evening on the couch, that I wondered what I was doing wrong.  I did love my family, so I knew that wasn’t wrong.  But I didn’t seem to be able to make any changes that I wanted to, like taking a shower every day or cooking dinner.  And I realized I was insecure about some moves my husband wanted to make, and was dreading talking to him about it.  I wasn’t getting a lot of private “recharging” time but when I did, I either felt euphoric or lost.  Bad sign.

So going through a season where I was heightened to my works problem was life-altering.  I heard a message by Naomi Beard where she talked about God being able to assemble the dry bones when the pieces were flung all over the field, and that really spoke to me.  I had some talks with my husband about sticky issues like feminism and staying at home, and got some things out in the open,  I practiced not necessarily feeling what others around me were feeling, keeping up my boundaries, not personalizing attacks or crying, and focusing on changes I could make instead of keeping the peace.  And I started to explore a whole different avenue in life.  I found I didn’t have to be a chameleon.  I was actually a pretty happy and optimistic person!  I didn’t have to feel chained to a plan that I thought was necessarily the only Godly way.  God actually was happy with multiple options.  And I didn’t have to fake it or keep all the emotions in.  There was liberty to express things, even if they weren’t the ones I’m most proud of ;-)

Today, I am almost over the works problem that I believe is very common to women, wives, and moms.  Naomi Beard said almost all the young mothers in her church have struggled with it because life and identity change so much, so fast, in that time.  And each woman has to navigate the path differently, discovering the key things that hold her back and the biblical truth about those things.  But now I can see from the other side of the fence, and I know that bombing my works mentality has made the most difference in my happiness in life… not my kids, house, church, money, etc.  It was one of my big shackles.  Now I feel so much freedom in my heart to do big things, take chances, try some spontaneity… all the things I used to hate.  And the big Worrywart inside is dead.  At least, mostly =)  When I feel that works demon creeping back up, I can see it for what it is and kill it before it gets too far.  And I see other women struggling with it everywhere.  So if this is you, please take heart: God has the breakthrough for you coming.  Whether you are tied to image, mother, husband, security, job, kids, or standards, the Works Breakthrough is coming and will change your life.  Freedom is a reality, and it is possible for you.

Posted in Practical Theology | 3 Comments »

Once Saved, Always Saved?

Posted by riddlej on April 14, 2008

OSAS. A popular tenet of evangelicalism, but is it true? Many books and articles can be found on the subject, but I believe a lay reader of the Bible will find Scriptures and concepts that make OSAS doubtful.   In my opinion, it is an extreme position and a reaction to another unpalatable extreme position.

OSAS maintains you cannot lose your salvation.  You cannot undo the work God has done or the seal He has given, even if you want to.  At its best, OSAS attempts to provide security for believer who wonders if their sins or lack of faith can disqualify them for salvation.  At its worse, it claims that those who have made a confession but not followed up or kept the faith are secure.  At its best, OSAS procures some assurance for the believer; at its worst, it promotes a dogma over Scripture.  Many OSAS apologists argue that Christianity is different than other religions because it provides this assurance of salvation to the believer; that Christianity or true salvation in some sense demands this assurance.  But while I am not for cultish insecurity that ensnares followers, I think this is a made-up apologetic…nowhere does the Scripture demand that we have assurance, or say we are entitled to it.  It says to hold fast to the faith, trust God, and make every effort to make our calling and election sure.  So why is this so scary?

In the past, Methodism popularized the caricature of the Christian heading down to the altar every other Sunday to get re-saved.  Believers who were otherwise imperfect felt guilty about their sins, like they had to keep earning God’s favor over and over again.   This theology lacked grace, and perfect love which casts out fear.  While they had a helpful focus on the sanctification process, such Christianity was clearly based on works… not a Protestant foundation.  Luther’s main contribution to the still-Catholic world at that time, was that Christian salvation was based on faith and grace alone, not on the works of the believer… good or bad.  Bad works would lead to bad fruit, were dishonorable, and should be avoided.  But no act or non-act could disqualify one for salvation except for the decision to believe.  Luther’s personal life exemplified this quest, this assurance of salvation.  And after many years struggling to trust God, he came across this gem as his cornerstone: “I am Yours, save me.”  In other words, the believer’s decision to become God’s, was all it took.  As long as a believer rested on this foundation, his or her house could not be shaken.

But works theology soon cropped up in new ways, within Protestantism, including in sanctification-oriented churches.  The decision or orientation to believe God, and trust in His grace, was compromised by performance.  Christians are by nature grieved when they sin, so OSAS was developed as a way to assuage insecure believers.  Many wonder, what if I have doubts? What if I die while I am not sure about God’s existence, or creation, or other thing? If I backslide for awhile, and I die, will I go to heaven? Scripture certainly makes it clear that we can backslide, and that that is concerning. Scripture also talks about blaspheming the Holy Spirit, being put out of the church to come to repentance, being handed over to Satan, bringing another brother back to the faith, and taking care lest you fall away. And all of this is insecuring for the person who doubts whether they are really saved. But Christianity is not for the faint of heart. We do not need an absolutist dogma to keep us secure in Christ, if for no other reason than this is idolatrous (puts something above Christ himself). It is my experience that usually the people who are most concerned about this topic are precisely the people who don’t need to worry about losing their salvation… how many unbelievers do you know, who are worried about backsliding? or their doubts?  The same was true with the works-oriented Methodism: the same people returning to the altar were the people attending church, grieved by their sin, and desirous of the Lord… precisely the people who didn’t need to worry so much.

Thus I gently conclude that OSAS, as a doctrine, is more for the insecure than it is for the student of the Word. The Bible simply doesn’t teach it; if God wanted to teach OSAS, He could have done it far better. In reality, OSAS apologists are confined to prooftexting, which means finding supporting Scriptures and ignoring the ones which do not. The true student of the Word will notice this right away, as they will be forced to reinterpret non-fitting Scriptures in ways that stretch common sense. Scriptures such as:

“But my righteous one will live by faith. And if he shrinks back,
I will not be pleased with him.” But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved.” (Heb. 10:38-9)

If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.” (2 Peter 2:20-1)

So if Scriptures like these exist, which make it clear that the believer can retreat into non-belief (with condemnation), then how do we prevent ourselves from slipping into the Methodist error? What assurance do we have? Fortunately, the Scripture DOES teach a basically secure, strong view of salvation with lots of passages encouraging us to trust God.  It has, relatively, just a couple warnings thrown in about conditionality so we aren’t deceived.  It is my conviction that the security and strength of the salvation relationship is analogous to the strength and security of marriage.  Most people are secure enough in their marriage to sleep at night even though there is some slim possibility that their spouse could sneak out of the bed and leave.  They could be tempted or deceived to leave, or they could purposely desert us for another.  But we do not chain our spouses to the house in order to allay our fears. We trust them. Based on our vows at the altar and the mutual love and understanding we work so hard to give each day, we are secure. The freedom to leave—which does exist—does not nullify the security in good marriages. Because both spouses are in the game together, both are equally vested in staying, even when the going is rough. The social contract works, and love covers a multitude of sins. Unless one spouse specifically terminates the relationship, marriage continues into the golden years for good or for ill.

I believe this is exactly the picture of God and the believer that the Bible portrays.  Except that God, as our Bridegroom, is the perfect spouse.  The Bible explicitly teaches that the Church is the Bride of Christ. The Bible consistently makes analogies of lovers (i.e. Song of Solomon, Jeremiah) and the Bridegroom coming for the Bride (the parables) to portray our relationship to God. We freely enter the relationship and we are free to leave. Nothing constrains us. Certainly not the unalterable will of God that will keep us in His family, kicking and screaming.  However, God pledges never to leave us.  And He loves us perfectly.  So in essence, it is as though we were married to someone who could always forgive us and do the right thing, who is helping us become a better person.  The relationship is even stronger than earthly marriage because only one party–us–can terminate it; in the marriage, there are two players to satisfy.  So just as we believe our earthly spouse when they say their vows, we believe our heavenly Father when He offers His covenant.  He promises eternal life and we confess with our mouth that He is Lord and risen from the dead.  Because the covenant is His to give, He pays for us with the blood of Christ and He seals us for the day of redemption with the Holy Spirit. All of these free gifts to us are sacred, just as marriage is sacred, and they should mean more to us than life itself.

OSAS people like to defend their position by pointing out the slippery slope of conditional salvation and making it seem like if we weren’t irrevocably saved, then people would be losing their salvation all the time; they would be tempted out of the fold or wanting to leave all the time. Well, to some extent we are tempted all the time; the world is a spiritual warfare zone. We vie for our lives every day as we set guards over our eyes and ears and hearts. But in the more practical sense, life is very enjoyable from day to day if we train ourselves and walk in trust. It isn’t usually a minefield! And fewer people purposely desert than it may seem; many people stick marriage out even when things are downright horrible. The high divorce rate today is due to many factors, including the debasement of the whole concept of marriage, which has isn’t taught well. It is not unlike the Church where “converts” don’t always become “disciples” because the gift of salvation isn’t presented in its proper context. Christian casualties happen all the time.

But again, the logical possibility of a slippery slope doesn’t mean it has to be that way. The prospect of losing one’s salvation does not have to keep us up at night (or at the altar every other Sunday) even as the prospect of losing one’s marriage does not keep us up at night (or continually renewing our vows). The whole concept of faith is trust, which by definition implies that something could not be, or could be otherwise.  We shouldn’t embrace OSAS dogma to avoid the hard truth about faith, that we can walk away from our Marriage. We shouldn’t walk away because we joined the covenant and were bought and sealed. We shouldn’t, because we are in a solemn, give-and-take relationship of perfect love which cancels fear. But nothing in the covenant automatically excludes us from the ability to break it. The covenant is just that GOD HIMSELF will not walk away; we will have to, as Paul says that some have “deserted the truth.”

Maybe this draws too gray of a line, but it is true nonetheless.  We must be brave enough to realize that we can leave if we want to.  And yet we must be wise enough to realize we don’t cancel our spiritual relationship by any specific work, or doubt–in the same way that we do not cancel our marriage relationship by any specific work or doubt. Is our marriage over if we have doubts it? Or if we do foolish things? When we put conditionality together with God’s initiation and His surpassing love and permanence, we conclude that nullifying our relationship with Him takes some effort. It takes an undoing of our repentance, a re-rejection of His offer. We can be an amazingly inadequate spouse, but that doesn’t doom the marriage. But if lifelong and professed adultery is the pattern, our marriage fails. We nullify our covenant not by our words but by our deeds. Our heart is elsewhere. The same is true with Christ. An imperfect walk is not grounds for cancellation. But lifelong adultery is, when our hearts lust after other gods or other ways. If we do not want God to be our God, He will not force us. He didn’t force us to get into the Kingdom, and He will not force us to stay in. This should not be taken to the extreme level as works-based Christianity has in the past.  These theologies are guilt-based, which have every sin possibly being the source of separation from God. But every sin should, in some sense, be taken seriously. And certainly an adulterous heart that is not turning may come close to blaspheming the Holy Spirit, which Jesus says is the true Unpardonable Sin. For how can one who is born-again and given the Holy Spirit then turn and live life for evil? It isn’t mistakes or works that condemn us, it is the orientation of the heart.

This idea can be a little disturbing, but the answer is not to turn to another absolutist position in order to feel safe. God is our refuge, and HE is our safety, our security, our strong tower; the Psalms proclaim this over and over.  If we are bold enough to believe them, then we can experience even more trust in God than we had before, when we were trusting in a doctrine.  We should not be afraid of Him if we’re doubtful, we should run to Him if we are. We should not be afraid of Him if we’re sinful, we should run to Him if we are. We should not run to OSAS. A doctrine can never be above God Himself.

Posted in Practical Theology | 1 Comment »