Spiritual Heart Disease

Coronary Heart Disease is the number one cause of death in America, based upon what I’m told. I work at a hospital and come in contact with its victims quite frequently. Yet a far more massive number of people suffer from another type of “heart disease,” an internal spiritual ailment that is far grimmer and deadlier than CHD. In fact, every human being to ever live has been a victim of this spiritual “heart disease,” aside from one man. But this one man has made a way for all of us to be cured of this disease; as a matter of fact, he is the cure for this disease. I’m talking about Jesus, of course, the speaker in the following passage:

And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.” (Mark 7:20-23 ESV)

The point of this passage, when taken in context, is to deal with the problem that some of the Pharisees had “let go of the commands of God” and began “holding on to the traditions of men” (Mark 7:8). A particular group of Pharisees was agitated that Jesus’ disciples were eating without first undergoing a ceremonial washing of their hands, and Jesus took this opportunity to confront their hypocrisy. Still, there is a solid principle we can take from Jesus’ teaching; God is concerned about the heart of man, from which all sorts of evil flow, thus defiling the individual. This principle, in one way or another, is attested to and fleshed out by hundreds of additional Scriptures (Gen. 6:5; Lev. 19:17; Num. 15:39; Deut. 8:2, 10:16, 13:3; 1 Sam. 16:7; 1 Kings 8:58; 1 Chron. 28:9; 2 Chron.16:9; Pss. 19:14, 55:15; Prov. 16:5; Eccles. 9:3, 10:2; Isa. 32:6; Jer. 5:23, 17:9; Ezek. 11:21; Matt. 13:15; Acts 7:51; Rom. 1:21, 2:29; 1 Cor. 4:5; Eph. 6:6; 1 Thess. 2:4; Rev. 2:23; etc.).

So, God is significantly concerned about the heart; he tests the hearts of men based on their external deeds, by measure of his commandments (Deut. 8:2, 1 Chron. 29:17, 2 Chron. 32:31, Ps. 7:9, Jer. 20:12, 1 Thess. 2:4, Heb. 3:8, etc.). This demonstrates the relationship between a man’s heart and his deeds; one’s behavior reflects the condition of one’s heart. Those with a pure heart will produce good deeds while those with a wicked heart will produce evil deeds. Jesus explains this with the analogy of a tree and its fruit, found in Matt. 12:33:

Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. (NIV)

Obviously, the tree symbolizes our heart, while the fruit represents our external deeds or actions. Therefore, it is not our actions themselves that make us guilty, but rather, the sinful attitude hidden in our heart that produces such actions. A rejection of God occurs inside our hearts, leading to sinful behavior on the outside. This means that the deepest level of sin occurs internally; behind even the most minuscule transgressions is a root sin, found deep inside of our hearts. When we sin on the outside–say, by lying or saying cruel things to others—there is something in our heart that is spewing forth such unrighteous acts. Furthermore, whatever the root sin, residing in our heart, may be, it is ultimately a rebellion against God and His Gospel. For example, we may fail to trust in his sovereignty over a situation, or we may reject his grace, or perhaps his justice. Whenever we sin, we declare in our hearts that we do not need God (whether we realize it or not), by choosing our own selfish interests over His will. All sin, therefore, is ultimately some sort of self-worship, as we deny God the glory He is due in favor of our own way. All of this flows from an evil heart.

The Therapeutic Gospel

It has been on my heart lately, I think, to post something about the consumeristic, selfish madness that is so evident in contemporary Western Christianity. However, I came across this post by David Powlison, which is far more detailed and pragmatic than anything I could possibly come up with on this topic. So, in the hope that God would be glorified, I’m sharing with you Powlison’s post on “The Therapeutic Gospel.” It’s a pretty long post, you’ll find once you click “Read the Rest of This Entry,” but it’s worth the time and effort.

The Therapeutic Gospel

What may be the most famous chapter in all of western literature portrays the appeal of a “therapeutic gospel.”

In his chapter entitled “The Grand Inquisitor,” Fyodor Dostoevsky imagines Jesus returning to sixteenth century Spain (The Brothers Karamazov, II:5:v). But Jesus is not welcomed by church authorities. The cardinal of Seville, head of the Inquisition, arrests and imprisons Jesus, condemning him to die. Why? The church has shifted course. It has decided to meet instinctual human cravings, rather than calling men to repentance. It has decided to bend its message to felt needs, rather than calling forth the high, holy, and difficult freedom of faith working through love. Jesus’ biblical example and message are deemed too hard for weak souls, and the church has decided to make it easy.

The Grand Inquisitor, representing the voice of this misguided church, interrogates Jesus in his prison cell. He sides with the tempter and the three questions the tempter put to Jesus in the wilderness centuries before. He says that the church will give earthly bread instead of the bread of heaven. It will offer religious magic and miracles instead of faith in the Word of God. It will exert temporal power and authority instead of serving the call to freedom. “We have corrected Your work,” the inquisitor says to Jesus.

The inquisitor’s gospel is a therapeutic gospel. It’s structured to give people what they want, not to change what they want. It centers exclusively around the welfare of man and temporal happiness. It discards the glory of God in Christ. It forfeits the narrow, difficult road that brings deep human flourishing and eternal joy. This therapeutic gospel accepts and covers for human weaknesses, seeking to ameliorate the most obvious symptoms of distress. It makes people feel better. It takes human nature as a given, because human nature is too hard to change. It does not want the King of Heaven to come down. It does not attempt to change people into lovers of God, given the truth of who Jesus is, what he is like, what he does.

Some Useful Insight in Regard to “Free Will”

I found the following post by Rev. John Samson on the Reformation Theology blog to be helpful and thought-provoking. Check it out:

 Clarifying Some Confusion About “Free Will”

Have you ever heard anyone ask something like “How do we reconcile the fact that God is sovereign but man has a free will”? We need to take a close look at the question itself because it has assumptions that may or may not be be in the Scripture.

The Captivity, Pharisaism, and Paul

Perhaps I’m rambling in this post; however, I am fascinated with the paradigm shift Paul experienced after being confronted by Christ in Acts 9. The way he rethinks his theology is remarkable, and it demonstrates the importance of seeking Christ first in order to unlock all spiritual understanding. So, in the hope of shedding some light on Paul’s big paradigm shift, I’d like to attempt to lay down a general background, starting waaaay back—around 600 years before Paul’s “Damascus Road” experience—during the Babylonian Captivity.

586 B.C. was a troubling year for the Jews, to put it very lightly. The Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem, forcing many of her inhabitants into exile, and crushing the spirits of the Judean people. The entire book of Lamentations was written admid intense mourning for this horrific tradgedy; screams of despair seem to resound harshly from the pages of my Bible whenever I read its verses. The author’s broken, hopeless sentiment, undoubtedly similar to that of his brothers, is quite evident in 1:16:

“For these things I weep;
my eyes flow with tears;
for a comforter is far from me,
one to revive my spirit;
my children are desolate,
for the enemy has prevailed.”

Gay Rights and Reparative Therapy

We Christians generally don’t do too well when it comes to dealing with the issue of homosexuality. Many Christians make it into “the ultimate sin” and treat gays like lepers. Some even go so far as to confront homosexuality with hatred; most of us have, through the media, witnessed some group of angry rednecks that profess Christ while holding signs exlaiming, “God hates fags!” Surely, if they’ve read their Bibles, they should know that the Messiah they claim to follow would never condone such mistreatment. After all, homosexuality is a sin found in the same list as idolatry, adultery, greed, thievery, drunkeness and fraud (1 Cor. 6:9-10). Why should these other sins be any less offensive?

On the other hand, however, many Christians back away from homosexuality; sermons purposely avoid such topics and many Christians dare not speak of it as sin. Furthermore, in some circles, homosexuality is openly acceptable and even celebrated as a perfectly legitimate lifestyle, despite clear teachings in Scripture against it (most of these teachings are blatantly misconstrued and manipulated to fit the “interpreter’s” worldview).

With so many Christians either becoming too militant or too welcoming toward homosexuality, it is perhaps difficult for one to be lovingly uncompromising on the issue of homosexuality. I believe Christians ought to reach out with compassion to homosexuals without denying or minimizing the seriousness or sinfulness of their lifestyle. However, after reading a recent article from Time regarding reparative therapy, I fear this moderate stance may become even scarcer; what is most peculiar, however, is that this time, it’s the gay rights advocates who are actually attempting to suppress gay rights.

Yes, that’s correct, it seems as though the gay rights movement is seeking to strip gays of their right to reparative therapy. The American Psychological Association—cheered on by gay rights activists—is now reconsidering its stance on counseling gays, potentially condemning reparative therapy, which provides counseling to those who seek to either suppress or reverse their homosexuality.

Getting Nit-Picky with “The Church”

Recently, Pope Benedict XVI made the statement that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true Church; today I came across a thought-provoking post on another blog, “Inhabitatio Dei,” that challenges Protestants to think about their own definition of the Church. I thought I’d share my two cents. Here’s a copy of the post:

In light of the recent document promulgated by the Catholic church on the non-ecclesiality of protestant churches, I have started thinking about what exactly is it that makes the church?  What must be present for the church to be present?  For the Catholic and Orthodox communions, it is clearly apostolic sucession that is the constitutive element of the church (the difference between the two of them being Papal primacy).  For protestants, though?  I’m working on formulating a proposal myself, but first I wanted to see people take a crack at answering the question themselves.  So, what in your view constitutes the church?  When is a gathering of Christians truly a church?

The Common Heart of Legalists and Hedonists

There are two major misrepresentations of the gospel visible in our culture—even in our churches—today.

The first of the two is a legalistic, works-based religion that essentially depends on man’s own work (often found in obedience to a certain set of laws or commandments) for salvation. Moral values, to the legalist, are his ultimate god—whether he admits it or not. Legalism is often either accompanied by unhealthy pride (a sense of self-righteousness that comes from behaving well) or unhealthy shame (a sense of failure due to one’s own shortcomings in regard to a certain moral standard). While many professing Christians operate (even if subconsciously) under such a system, such a legalistic faith does not resemble “the faith” proclaimed by the Apostle Paul, which comes from hearing the Gospel. In fact, legalism stands in clear contrast to the Gospel of Christ because it puts eternal salvation solely in the hands of the believer and effectually denies the salvation by faith proclaimed loudly throughout Scripture.

However, the second of these misrepresentations of the Gospel is a hedonistic attitude. In other words, many Westerners (including Christians) fall to the end of the spectrum opposite to that of the legalists, in that they take a very lax stance on sin and morality. Hedonism is more liberal and seeks pleasure and happiness rather than obedience to God; disobedience is not taken seriously as God’s grace is cited as an excuse to sin (Paul seems to sharply rebuke those with this attitude in Romans 6). Hedonists attempt to justify or rationalize their rebellion against God by saying things like, “God forgives” or “Nobody’s perfect,” sometimes even misusing Scripture to support their perspective. “I’m mostly a good person. After all, everyone has their flaws; God is gracious,” a Hedonist might say. However, in feeling like they somehow deserve God’s grace simply because they have generally good intentions, Hedonists fall victim to the same heart found in legalists.

Ultimately, both hedonists and legalists believe in a man-made way to God. While the legalist may strive to “earn” salvation, the hedonist thinks he “deserves” salvation simply because a loving God, he reasons, must accept him because he means well.

Both of these misrepresentations deny the nature of Christian salvation—that man is saved by grace through faith apart from works, yet for good works (Ephesians 2:8-10). Doctrines that proclaim a legalistic salvation or condone a hedonistic lifestyle are false doctrines, contrary to the Gospel of Christ.

It is my prayer that as a Church (universally) we would proclaim the real Gospel and refute such false gospels with Christ’s remarkable truth. This means spotting both legalism and hedonism in the teachings of others, as well as in the hearts of believers. However, it essential to take the first step of examining ourselves; do we subconsciously believe or follow such a false gospel? Let us seek God’s hand in exposing to us our sinful mistrust in His glorious Gospel and ask Him to work in our hearts, that we may desperately fall upon His cross.

Beyond Abortion: The Sanctity of Life and Iraq

I try to avoid blogging too much about politics because they so often lead to either idolatry or division within the people of God. However, I feel convicted to share some observations about our American culture; this is about as politically loud-mouthed as you’ll hear me get on RealityDisease.Org, so don’t worry. Why am I upset? I am upset because Americans, whether liberal or conservative, generally have no respect for human life.

Wrestling (Again) With Romans 9

And not only so, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad–in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call– she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

Romans 9:10-18 (ESV)

Don’t expect to read anything new or groundbreaking in regard to this passage, especially from me; if you’re looking for an in-depth theological commentary, go somewhere else. However, I have (once again) come to wrestle with this passage in Romans 9 and become amazed by the way it shatters my previously held image of God.

Bearing Fruits in Keeping With Repentance

John the Baptist was such a powerful, radical teacher that many of his disciples wondered if he was the Christ (Luke 3:15). Of him, Jesus said, “among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist” (Matthew 11:11 NIV). So, if you don’t mind taking advice from a guy who wore clothes of camel’s hair and ate locusts (Mark 1:6), check this out:

He said therefore to the crowds that came out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruits in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”

And the crowds asked him, “What then shall we do?” And he answered them, “Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.” Tax collectors also came to be baptized and said to him, “Teacher, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Collect no more than you are authorized to do.” Soldiers also asked him, “And we, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.”

Luke 3:7-14 (ESV)