Ultimately, Intentional Active Obedience Cannot Be Denied As Curative in Counseling
Some weeks ago, I was sent a webinar clip of a presentation by a NANC fellow (as in membership status, National Association of Nouthetic Counselers). The individual presented a counseling model that focused on showing the counselee the magnificence of the gospel. Supposedly, wowing the counselee or “amazing” the counselee with the gospel is curative (whether the counselee is a Christian or otherwise). Furthermore, the other side of this model proffered the idea that intentional obedience or instruction to change behavior was not only ant-curative, but legalism and works righteousness. A focus, or as some (other than the webinar presenter) call it, “moving deeper into the gospel” or “contemplation of the gospel,” results in “reasonable service” or what is known as new obedience. New obedience displays itself as a joyful “mere natural flow” which supposedly identifies the quality of obedience as being pure in motive. Duty no longer stands on its own as a virtue, but must be purified by joy and lack of our effort in the midst.
The NANC minion also referred to a behavioral emphasis in counseling as works righteousness, even when counseling a believer. So, emphasis on behavior in counseling is actually the same as beckoning the counselee to abandon the true gospel for a false one. Of course, this is counseling based on Sonship theology—“the same gospel that saved you also sanctifies you” and “we must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday.” Though I am in the midst of researching this and I’m compiling a list of people I want to interview in regard to Sonship’s history, it looks like the doctrine was contrived by a former prof. of theology at Westminster Theological Seminary and further developed by one of his understudies, David Powlison, a prof. at Westminster’s counseling wing: CCEF (Christian Counseling and Education Foundation). Unfortunately, Powlison and other associates such as Paul David Tripp were allowed unfettered involvement in NANC as instructors and board members who also infected NANC with said doctrine. Roughly eleven years ago, I witnessed the takeover of a NANC training center by Sonship advocates firsthand (though I did not know what the doctrine was at the time), and a pastor friend of mine was in NANC training taught by a Sonship advocate in Lafayette, Indiana. Hence, the webinar per my introduction.
Therefore, there is an important Sonship mantra that all counselors and Christians alike should understand: “The imperative command is grounded in the indicative event.” Stop being lazy and start thinking—this is why two counseling organizations have become unwitting (I’m being tentative) partners with the kingdom of darkness, and it’s time Christians start paying attention to this stuff. The indicative event refers to the finished work of Christ on the cross. Therefore, all biblical commands that we would obey flow from Christ’s atoning work and not ours, or, “The imperative command….” Proponents of Sonship and gospel sanctification (what Sonship has morphed into of late) will often cite Bible verses where this is true—Christians obey because of what Christ has already done (you do this because Christ did that), but then they insist that this is the only biblical pattern in Scripture. Conclusion: All present, past, and future real-time active obedience was secured and imputed to us from the atonement just like righteousness. In the same way all of our righteousness comes from Christ, all of our obedience also comes from Christ. In other words, Christ obeys for us. Any effort on our part to obey is works righteousness in the same way we would try to earn our own righteousness with no distinction between justification and sanctification—they are treated as being the same thing. As Francis Chan says: if we work, “it feels like work,” but if Christ is the one working, “it feels like love.” Hence, when Christ is obeying for us (they say “through,” but that doesn’t fit what they really believe and makes it sound synergistic), it’s a joyful “mere natural flow.” This is why the teachings of John Piper are a staple in GS/Sonship circles. Piper’s Christian hedonism answers the, “How do we know when it’s us trying to obey or Christ obeying for us?
However, in Scripture, the imperative often precedes the indicative (if you do this, God will do that). Many Scriptures that emphasize rewards in this present life (Eph 6:1-3), and in the future would be good examples of this. Also, some imperatives are grounded in indicatives that God hasn’t even done yet! (Heb 10:19-25 2Pet 3:11,12 [do this because this is what God is going to do in the future]). By the way, so what if it’s us doing it, and regardless of the difficulty?—we recognize we are acting by faith because we believe that God will really do what he says He will do, and (that) faith is a gift from Him, but that doesn’t exclude our effort! This is no trite matter—this is two schools of thought that teach Christians what our role in sanctification is, and how it will be experienced in real life! The reality of this hits one in the face when we hear Michael Horton say that biblical imperatives are not “promises.” Sure, doing everything we do for the sole purpose of pleasing God is honorable, but that’s not how God Himself approaches us in every circumstance with His word. This whole subject is also paramount in regard to giving hope in counseling as well. Moreover, the folly of Sonship is exposed when advocates implement a literal hermeneutic when the IND >IMP is present, but switch to a Christocentric / gospel hermeneutic (prism) when the IMP>IND or IMP> future IND is present, aping one of Paul David Tripp’s profundities: “Well, that verse has to be considered in its gospel context.”
But, there is one more thing that exposes the folly of this Sonship/GS element; namely, a denial of intentional active obedience on the part of the counselee, and that is: real life. On this point, the advocates themselves confess. In the ebook entitled, “Treating Delight as Duty is Controversial” (chapter 3, can viewed on his website), John piper concedes the following:
“It is true that our hearts are often sluggish. We do not feel the depth or intensity of affections that are appropriate for God or His cause. It is true that at those times we must exert our wills and make decisions that we hope will rekindle our joy. Even though joyless love is not our aim (“God loves a cheerful giver!” 2 Corinthians 9:7; “[Show] mercy with cheerfulness,” Romans 12:8), nevertheless it is better to do a joyless duty than not to do it, provided that there is a spirit of repentance that we have not done all of our duty because of the sluggishness of our hearts.”
Is obeying whether we feel like it or not really sin?—or a deeper form of self-sacrifice? After all, self doesn’t want to do what God wants, right? But my main point here is that the reality of intentional active obedience cannot ultimately be rejected because real life comes knocking, as Piper himself concedes, though by writing that it is better to sin in obedience than not to obey. Uh, I think that’s what he’s saying, right? However, the most striking concession was from a CCEF counselor named Robyn Huck in an article she recently wrote about the passing of her father. Regarding the quality of her parent’s marriage, she wrote:
“My folks were married for almost 52 years. I’m the oldest of their five children and was born in their first year of marriage, so I got to witness a lot of their life together. It was not a picture of paradise all those years, but somewhere around year 20 or so, there was tremendous growth in their relationship, and since then, they have been a wonderful example of a really good Christian marriage. I know it wasn’t always easy and I know it took a lot of work. But over and over in little day-to-day moments, they intentionally gave up self and embraced the oneness God called them to. And they were very happy.”
I think it is a good reminder to many that Christians developed good marriages by applying biblical concepts like self-sacrifice long before CCEF was around, or for that matter, NANC as well. But Paul Tripp’s answer to that would be along the lines of the fellow in the webinar, and also echoed by Larry Crabb in “Inside Out”; even if your walk with Christ is strong, it can be even better when you realize that “you no longer live, but Christ lives in you! We [him and Timothy S, Lane, both prof.’s at CCEF] welcome you to a lifestyle of celebrating just what that means” (“How People Change” p.19). Well, I read the book; it means you are spiritually dead so Christ has to obey for you. You doubt that he wrote that? Here is what he also wrote on page 171: “ It is not enough for Paul to say that the death of Christ made him new. He says that when he died, the old Paul was not replaced with a new and improved version of Paul [being born again isn’t an improved version?!], but with Christ Himself!” [this isn’t true, it’s not one or the other—it’s both].
That’s why these other comments by Huck are surprising as well:
“This ‘path’ through the woods was cleared a long time ago, but it’s still the right path, and can still be found and followed in these wintery times. What I’m trying to say is that God’s provision for my mother began thousands of years ago when he provided these lessons in Scripture. With God’s help, my parents followed that path to the best of their ability, and now my mother is reaping the fine reward of wise, godly living.”
And,
“They also intentionally nurtured their faith, with habits of daily scripture reading and prayer. In each of these areas, my folks sought to live godly lives, and it was good for them. The process was good and now the product is good. God created the provision of Christian community, adequate finances, and strong living faith through their acts of obedience. My folks did not live perfectly, but for the most part, they stayed on the path.”
And,
“And though living in obedience to God’s word doesn’t guarantee an easy or comfortable life, it is the passageway for his promises to be fulfilled and for faith to be built. Now that trouble has come to my family, the blessings of following God’s path and living the obedient life just keep jumping out at me. My mom truly has what she needs, both to live and to get through this difficult time.”
And this last statement is totally astounding:
“This serves as a great reminder to me as I counsel. Though we are right to be focused on the hearts of the people to whom we minister, we must also remember that blessings can come from simply doing what the Word says to do. It’s true that the deepest blessings of obedience happen when it is done out of love, but any act of obedience can be instrumental in turning the heart, and can bring the positive outcomes that so many proverbs describe.”
Yikes! She is saying that “any act of obedience” can be “instrumental” in “turning the heart” and can bring “positive outcomes,” while giving CCEF’s staple doctrine (heart theology) a wimpy, honorable mention: “Though we are right to be focused on the hearts of the people to whom we minister…” This even implies that outward obedience with the right motive, but maybe not joyful, can “turn the heart.” To me, this is a glaring contradiction to the foundation of CCEF’s counseling philosophy.
Robyn Huck, like all counselors who really want to help people, and I definitely put her in that category, eventually come to the conclusion that IND>IMP and IMP>IND and IMP>future IND are all equally true.
paul
Matthew 25:14-29: More is at Stake Than Semantics Concerning Sanctification
Jay Adams wrote the following helpful words in a recent post:
“There are two ways to serve the Lord, only one of which actually renders service that He approves. One way is to have an intellectually correct view of what God requires and then to make an attempt to fulfill the requirements. The other way is to gain an equally correct view of what God requires and then tell Him that you cannot fulfill the requirements. The latter view is the proper one.
But, of course, it is not enough to tell the Lord that you can’t do what He requires. That, admission must be followed immediately by your acknowledgment that He can, and is willing to, enable you to do so by His Spirit, which in turn must be followed by your request for such help.
God blesses the humble, who acknowledge their own insufficiency. But He never takes that as an excuse for failing to meet His requirements. He has provided all we need for life and godliness, so no excuse is valid. On the other hand, we will not be given that for which we do not humbly ask.
So, a proper balancing of biblical truth is necessary: we cannot/we can—on our own/with His help. So, believer, in serving God, we serve well when we serve Him in our insufficiency fully aided by His sufficiency. Even Jesus, the all-sufficient One ministered under the power of the Holy Spirit. True godly service is that which involves both the human and the divine.”
True, and very helpful words for understanding. I would only add that our “human” involvement does include effort, or as JC Ryle states it: “exertion.” And why not? Unlike worldly endeavors, our efforts are guaranteed to yield positive results when we depend on Him and follow His ways of doing things. It is storing up treasures in heaven rather than where thieves steal and moths corrupt. “’I’ can do all things through Him who strengthens me” (Phil 4:13). What a wonderful verse! It is a staple verse in my relationship with Susan. We don’t even waste time saying, “Well, I’ll try,” when one of us confronts the other about changes we need to make in our lives, knowing that the Phil 4:13 reminder will be immediately implemented. Also, when we don’t “feel” like we have the will to do God’s bidding, that’s false as well according to Phil 2:13. God will always grant the will. As Dr. Adams states above, no excuses.
In Matthew 25:14-29, Christ speaks of a servant who offered an excuse rather than service. Christ calls the servant “lazy,” which is the antithesis of work. The servant did not work in his spiritual life. God enables according to the gifts given; this is another truth that can be born-out here, but obviously, work on our part is still required. And we would do well to strongly consider the end result: “And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Though Jay’s post deals with sanctification and this passage of Scripture deals with justification as can be ascertained by the last statement cited by Christ, the post offers helpful insights to hang our thoughts on. Jay speaks of trying to do things right without depending on Christ, and knowing what is right, and not doing it. Both will lead to God’s “[dis]approval” or loss of reward. But what of the belief that we can’t work in the sanctification process, with or without God’s enablement? Now, I’m not going to speculate on an articulation of the servants thinking, but nonetheless, we can conclude that it was derived from an inaccurate assessment of God’s law, ie., what the Lord expects, and the false assessment resulted in him not working for the lord, ie., spiritual laziness. Working off of Jay’s helpful prism, this is wrong information (or, in essence, a misinterpretation of the law) leading to wrong behavior and self-deception, not the use of right information implemented in the wrong way, ie., a self-dependent / non-humble attitude.
So, when presenting the gospel, is it a true presentation if the Lord’s expectations are not accurately presented? What if we are told that we are not saved by the law (true), that we can’t keep the law (true), and that the law has no role in our relationship to God because it has been abrogated by whatever “feels like love” (not true: Francis Chan,“Crazy Love”p. 110). What if the presentation says that the gospel is strictly a “proclamation” and not something to be “followed” (not true: Michael Horton, “Modern Reformation” Nov. / Dec. Vol.15 No.6 2006 pages 6-9) even though Christ said “follow me,” and what He was referring to was “teaching them to observe whatsoever I have commanded”?
Again, I am not going to make any judgments regarding what the exact thinking of the servant was, but there is another safe conclusion that can be drawn: the servant was playing it safe. In his mind, he was erring on the side of safety (“I was afraid and went out and hid your gold in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you”), but to his horrible detriment. In our day, has the law of God been so misrepresented that we think to avoid it is to error on the side of safety? I think so. The belief that Jesus obeys for us—is that playing it safe because we can supposedly give Him all of the glory? Is the belief that all of the imperatives in the Bible are “indicative” of what Christ has done and not anything required of us indicative of that belief? Absolutely.
Lack of dependance on God can lead to non-humbleness in two different ways: lack of dependance in works, but also lack of dependance on God in understanding—leading to spiritual laziness. The slothful servant made the fatal error of leaning on his own understanding:
“His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27 Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.”
The servant misunderstood the Lord’s expectations, and didn’t even understand the best course of action based on the wrong information, that is another safe assumption. Is a gospel presentation void of repentance, and the standard of repentance, a valid gospel presentation? I doubt it. Telling people that any effort on our part to represent the gospel with our behavior is trying to “be the gospel” rather than presenting the gospel (Michael Horton, “Christless Christianity” pages 117-119) regardless of what 1Peter 2:12 and 3:1,2 clearly states—is that instruction that does not lean on biblical understanding and leads to spiritual laziness? Definitely.
Gospel sanctification must be contended against because it is clearly a false gospel; more is at stake than semantics concerning sanctification.
paul
Ok, Let’s Go Over This Again: Crazy Truth
Sigh. Everywhere I turn in Christian circles these days, there is a presentation of Francis Chan’s video that displays God’s greatness in creation (actually, he has made several different ones with this same theme). The movies are impressive and awe inspiring (one was shown at Susan’s church three or four weeks ago). Franchise Chan is also a dynamic speaker who is very interesting to listen to; I would be willing to bet anything that nobody is found dozing while observing one of his presentations.
But what are the beliefs behind these videos and his charismatic personality? And why does it matter?
What is behind these videos is Chan’s belief that people will usually respond to God when they realize how awesome He is. If people don’t respond to God’s greatness, it’s because we have failed to show how amazing He is. This was the thesis of the video by Chan that Susan and I observed at her church; it was a gospel presentation that attempted to illicit a response based on realizing how great God is in comparison to us.
Specifically, it’s the belief that people are transformed, initially and progressively, by gazing upon God’s greatness / glory. John Piper, another who is in this camp and often quoted by Chan, calls this “beholding as a way of becoming.” In correlation, Piper has based Sunday morning worship at his church on what he calls “exaltation” in which the goal is to work the congregation into an emotional frenzy (“exhilaration”) over God’s glory. I believe that the “praise and worship” format of many churches today, especially reformed churches, now have this goal in mind.
So what? The “so what” is the Corinthian problem all over again where the primary goal of true corporate worship (edification: note Paul’s primary point in 1Cor 14) is replaced with emotionalism. Therefore, it is no surprise that Chan and Piper are part of the neo-Calvinism movement which has embraced Charismatics such as Joshua Harris and CJ Mahaney. The primary thrust of Piper’s ministry is Christian Hedonism, which makes joy a prerequisite for salvation (even before saving faith), and claims that any activity that is joyless is “stripped of its moral value.” Throughout the highly acclaimed book written by Chan, “Crazy Love,” he points to feelings as the way to determine if we are walking in truth. In regard to the question of whether we have been set free from the law or not, he asks, “Do you feel free in your Christian life” (“Crazy Love.” p. 102). On page 110, he claims that we know when we are loving God’s way because it “feels like love.” Ok, so what does love feel like? Throughout the book, Chan likens his definition of love to what we feel like when we are in love with our spouse or boyfriend / girlfriend. And love is not an act, it is a feeling that leads to acts, and the feelings of love can only be acquired through prayer ( p. 104[which we apparently always feel like doing]).
What else is behind this belief? Secondly, other than creation, Scripture is the other bookend to our endeavor to see God’s glory. However, the key is to use Scripture to see and understand Christ as a person (whatever that means), not anything Christ would tell us to do. In other words, Chan doesn’t believe the Scriptures are profitable for instruction. With very few exceptions, you will not find any biblical how-to (instruction in righteousness) in his book. Like creation, the Bible only serves to wow us in regard to the personhood of Christ, leading to a willful, joyful obedience because serving those who we are in awe of—is never a struggle. Supposedly. Chan says the following on page 102: “When we love, we’re free! We don’t have to worry about a burdensome load of commands, because when we are loving, we can’t sin.” Plainly, Chan does not believe the Bible defines love, feelings do. That is why the likes of Chan and Piper have to redefine how we use Scripture—because a literal rendering of Scripture reveals their teachings for what they are: ridiculous. Point in case, Proverbs 13:24;
“ Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them.”
According to this passage, applying the rod to our children is an act of love. However, this “burdensome command” is often the reminder we need to love our children God’s way because the act is very unpleasant. But according to Piper and Chan, love should never be done from “mere duty,” so the assumption is that we should be bursting with joy while applying the rod to our children. I quoted this text in a Bible study last week and the class protested, saying it stated “spoil the child,” not “hate the child.” When we stopped and investigated, and discovered that the word was “hate,” the looks on their faces seemed to say, “Wow, that’s crazy truth.”
So, let’s go over this again; the prophets and apostles told us that false teachers will look good, sound good, and if you ever get near enough to Piper or Chan, I’m sure they smell good also. And, they also teach loads of good stuff, but as one writer once noted, “Satan will use a whole lake of truth to hide a pint of poison.” Truth about God’s creation—good. Distorting the use of God’s law in sanctification—bad.
paul
Teenage Rebellion and Paul Tripp’s Broken-Down House
As some know, this blog has turned into, primarily, an apology against Gospel Sanctification which is the spawn of Sonship Theology. To hear many tell it, we are in days that hearken back to the reign of Josiah when the lost book of the Covenant was found in the temple. Though we haven’t lost the Bible per se, they claim the true gospel has been lost in the temple of our minds via Pharisaic teaching that we are supposed to exert our own effort in the spiritual growth process. Yes, the great sin of our day is “serving God in our own efforts,” not serving God in our own way. In fact, our own way is ok, “as long as our motive is love.” As Francis Chan says: “When you are loving, you can’t sin.” Don’t you know, Christ came to fulfill the law for us and active obedience is imputed to us like justification. As John Piper says, biblical commands should be seen as works that Christ has done for us, and thereby instilling thankfulness in our hearts with joy and praise following (“How to Use the Law of God Lawfully to Bear Fruit For God”).
I have never read “Age of Opportunity” by Paul David Tripp. He is a proponent of Gospel Sanctification (GS) and I have always assumed it was a GS application on teenage parenting. But lately, events in my life have driven home how scary that is. I presently have the opportunity to counsel a rebellious teenager. We will call him “Freddy,” and we will call his dad “Ken.” Look, I am just a lowly pilgrim trying to make my way in God’s kingdom like everyone else, and will tell you that I am no expert on teenage rebellion. So here I am, prayerfully trying to work my way through all of this. Why would I get involved? Simple: “If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him” ( James 1:5). Other reasons will be stated later in this post.
I don’t like the hefty problems of life like severe “mental illness” and such. Why? Because it casts doubt on hope, and our God is the God of great hope. There is always hope when my great God is on the throne. In the Old Testament we have a picture of life’s problems in the person of Goliath. There he was; huge, ugly, very frightening, and mocking God. That made David angry. In the same way, the huge problems in our life seem to be mocking God by softly whispering in our ears, “hopeless, hopeless, hopeless.” Situations with rebellious teens can seem hopeless because they (teens) are formidable warriors. They will even fight to the death. As a means of revenge against parents, they will often commit suicide, knowing that the fallout will more than likely destroy their parent’s marriage, and leave the household devastated / guilt ridden. How do I know this? That’s what teenagers who have been interviewed say:
“Most teens who attempt suicide report a rich fantasy around the event, a fantasy that includes being noticed after death by those who have ignored them, causing regret among those they feel have wronged them and teaching a lesson to those who have harmed them. When teens think of suicide they often feel that they will be able to watch what happens after their death. This fantasy is an example of how weak a grasp suicidal teens have on the reality of the situation. Far too many suicidal teens do not ever stop to consider the finality of the act of suicide. Because suicidal thoughts are often part of a recognition/revenge fantasy it is all too easy for the immature teen psyche to play down the severity of suicide” (http://teenadvice.about.com/library/weekly/aa120502c.htm).
Besides this, many parents fear their rebellious teenagers to the point of removing all weapons from the house and installing deadbolts on their bedroom doors to prevent ambushes in the middle of the night. Teenage rebellion subjects a household to constant darkness and turmoil. Often, there is only peace in the home when the rebellious teen is appeased.
Let me share what I have learned so far. I am strongly drawn to Ephesians 6:1-4 in all of this because it seems to be a rare and definitive statement in the Bible on child rearing:
“1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 ‘Honor your father and mother’ (this is the first commandment with a promise), 3 ‘that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.’ 4 Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.”
An incident between Freddy and Ken brings verse 4A to life. Ken became frustrated with Freddy, and the reasons were far from trite (among many, serious disrespect towards the mother / wife by Freddy), but Ken’s intentions were to deliberately provoke Freddy to anger and even threatened him physically.
Ken was angry about the situation but Freddy’s attitude was flippant and he displayed no shame for the things he had done, so Ken provoked him. A father is the pastor of the home. Could you imagine going to church and seeing your pastor provoking a parishioner in the hallway? You would be horrified, as Ken was afterward in regard to his own behavior, and many tears were shed over this lapse. What should Ken have done instead? “Bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.”
I am totally amazed by this verse of Scripture. You can hear all of the “yes, but what about___?” But it seems like this verse keeps answering back: “two things; discipline and instruction.” Let me further explain. In working on this counseling situation, I did some research on military schools. But then I began to think: “Most of these schools are Christian schools, and the parents are dropping their teenager off because, ‘we can’t handle him / her anymore.’ Then, you read all of the wonderful testimonies about how parents get there children back fixed and remodeled. But the Christian boarding schools have the same Bible that the parents have!” Something just didn’t smell right, so I dug deeper. Apparently, the “secret” to the success of these boarding schools is the belief that teens thrive and find happiness in a structured, balanced environment. But that’s “discipline!” There just doing what Ephesians 6:4 says to do!
Of course, there are a lot of biblical principles that fall under discipline and instruction, but the child’s role and the parent’s role are plainly stated. A biblical counselor once told me that all of his counseling with teens is based on verses 1-3. He also told me that according to his experience, 90% of teen problems are related to their relationship with parents. It’s simple, honoring parents is the gateway to blessings, as these verses plainly state. According to him, all teen counseling must focus on honoring the parents, and the rest will usually fall into place. However, it seems to me that any counseling in regard to this subject must include the parents and the teenager so both understand how this works together. This point brings me to the second reason I am taking on this task; most teen counseling involves meetings with the teenager alone. This is ill-advised because even if the rebellious teen tells the whole truth, they are not usually mature enough to assess the issues of life; it is impossible to effectively counsel someone without a truthful and accurate assessment of their life.
Back to Ken and Freddy. I clearly see what Ken did in 4A, and I also see what Ken isn’t doing in 4B. This is so huge in this situation that you can’t miss it. Freddy has no structure in his life other than school. He is not required to do any chores. He gets home from school and just does whatever he feels like doing. Other than school and some sports, his whole life is texting, gaming, watching TV, surfing the web, listening to heavy metal music, etc. He leaves messes everywhere he goes in the house and refuses to pickup after himself. His room is always a mess, and he contributes nothing to the household. Can one call this the “discipline of the Lord?” I’m thinking, “no.” If this is absent via Ken’s failure, could it be connected to the rebellion? I’m thinking, “yes.” Are rebellious teens, well, undisciplined ? Now, Ken does the “instruction” part well (4C). Freddy gets a steady flow of solid theology, but in the home, there is no application thereof. Hence, Christ’s dynamic of practical application that concludes the sermon on the mount in Matthew 7 is not in place; there is instruction, but no discipline:
24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26 But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”
Ken must lead his family differently; Freddy’s house is broken-down.
Since Freddy does whatever he wants at home, it would stand to reason that he would also begin to do whatever he wants in regard to school, and that’s what happened the other day. He announced to Ken that he wasn’t going to school because he didn’t feel like it. This has happened before, but this time, a course of action had already been established. Ken calmly asked Freddy to get ready for school several times. Upon continual refusal, Ken advised Freddy that the police would be called, but to no avail, so they were summoned. At this point, Freddy feigned a nervous breakdown which was an impressive display complete with convulsions. This was also anticipated, and Ken informed Freddy that he wasn’t buying the act. When the police arrived, Freddy was told that if he didn’t go to school he would be taken to a juvenile detention center. Freddy went to school.
The next morning, a peculiar thing happened. When Freddy was awakened for school, he immediately got up and dressed. For the first time in ten days, he ate breakfast. Actually, he devoured it like he was starved. Not only that, his demeanor was cheerful. Ken called a family meeting that night and presented a family contract based on Ephesians 6:1-4. Ken confessed his sin to Freddy concerning his failure to lead the home in the discipline of the Lord. He explained that “discipline” doesn’t just mean rules and punishment, it also includes entertainment ( as Tony Evans says: “We are free to play football because of its rules) and structure; in essence, balance. He explained the awesome concept of self-discipline not making the negative aspect of the Lord’s discipline necessary ( 1Corinthians 11: 30-32) as well as many other dynamics and elements of skillfully applying God’s word to life and the blessings that result (James 1:25). Ken also presented some instruction on how our conscience works with faith. In fact, Ken pointed out how happy Freddy was that morning, even after being forced to do the right thing! Freddy sheepishly agreed.
Oh yes, I can now hear the cat-cries from the peanut gallery. Ken is just making Freddy into a Pharisee. Ken is just teaching Freddy to clean the outside of the cup, etc., etc., add nausea. Only one problem. Ken attends a church where “the gospel” is heavily emphasized as an instrument of change. One of the favorite teachers propagated by the church is Francis Chan, who teaches that people will have a pure, deep desire to follow Christ if you simply show how great He is. Hence, all obedience will flow from being wowed by Christ, and thankfulness for His incomprehensible sacrifice. And if we sin when we don’t have that desire, oh well, we’re not saved by works anyway. In fact, it’s good when we sin because it “makes us more dependent on Christ.” Making an effort to obey supposedly produces “self-righteousness” or as Paul Tripp states it: “Christless activism.” At any rate, my apologies to the peanut gallery, a gospel-centered approach isn’t working here.
And this is probably the reason why: the disciples were with Christ face to face for three years. Did Christ continually wow them? I think you know the answer to that. When Christ confronted Peter in His resurrected body, do you really think he told Peter to display his love for Him through obedience so he would fail and be more dependent on Him? I think you know the answer to that as well. Christ spent forty days teaching the disciples before he ascended. What did He teach them and what did they come away with? Answer: “He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.” And, “Then they gathered around him and asked him, ‘Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?’” Throughout the Scriptures, as here, the opportunity to correct the disciples on the supposed crux of discipleship is passed over. There are just too many times, in fact, hundreds, where some other word should be replaced with “gospel.” Such as:
“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and [continually showing forth the gospel] teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age”(Matthew 28).
I have a question. Teaching the wisdom of God and demonstrating how it brings peace to ones life whether they are saved or not isn’t the gospel? If God’s wisdom can’t produce a peaceful household, how can it save a soul? God’s wisdom clearly demonstrates the way of life and the way of death, and Moses pleaded with the children of Israel to “Choose life.” Clearly, the apostle Peter emphasized this fact in his first letter (3:1, 15,16).
This now brings me to Tripp’s book which doesn’t mention Ephesians 6:1-4 at all. This is most striking; a book on rearing children, whether teenagers or otherwise, that doesn’t mention this passage. Why would that be? First, the passage turns Tripp’s theology completely upside down by offering reward / incentive for doing what is right. This blows away the whole concept of all change being at “the heart level.” It is an outward enticement to encourage the heart to do what is right. Also, the apostle Paul emphasizes the point by quoting Moses. Ouch! This indicates that this principle has been in place since the beginning.
Secondly, GS depends heavily on the idea that the New Covenant replaced the Old Covenant completely by ushering in a modified Law or new Law. But Ephesians 2:12 makes being unregenerate synonymous with being alienated from the “covenants” (plural) of promise.” Then Paul connects this thought by making OT law applicable to sanctification. Therefore, the NC didn’t replace the old, but rather the NC, though better and different, has important OC elements built into it that are essential to spiritual growth. This is devastating to GS theology.
On page 76, Tripp writes that the Bible doesn’t convey wisdom in regard to raising teenagers, which is blatantly false as it is obvious that the word “children” in Ephesians 6:1 would include any unemancipated children or youth within the home. Therefore, Ephesians 6:1-3 applies directly to teens with priceless wisdom needed to rear them. In fact, efficacious, but nowhere to be found in “Age of Opportunity,” at least not by me after reading through the book twice.
Also, throughout the book, Tripp redefines “heart” to be something else other than what the Bible says it is. For the most part, in the Scriptures, “heart” is the mind, and the Bible defines it as the primary turf of our warfare with sin. I go into this in some detail here: https://paulspassingthoughts.wordpress.com/2011/02/10/doctrine/
Tripp doesn’t like that because if the mind is the primary turf of our warfare, objective application that could be construed as work, or efforts by us are made possible. Tripp believes that any effort by us to replace unbiblical thinking with biblical thinking is a denial of the gospel (How People Change, p.27).
Instead, Tripp presents the heart as a nebulous territory with various idols running about trying to hide from x-ray questions. Nebulous theology makes his theory of change possible.
Unless I missed this also, another biblical concept missing in AOO is corporal punishment. “Spare the rod, hate the child.” I am close friends with a couple who was counseled by a disciple of Paul Tripp. They informed me that whenever the subject was brought up in regard to their young children (not teenagers), the counselor became evasive. They also complained that there was a heavy emphasis on parental responsibility while insinuating that the actions of the children were only relevant from the perspective of the gospel (this is also heavily indicative of AOO). They eventually discontinued the counseling. Again, the idea that an outward application could facilitate inside change is an affront to Tripp’s theology. Neither is Tripp phased by the brazen contradictions to Scripture that follow. Because of what the Scriptures say about the importance of corporal punishment, its relationship to rearing teens is vitally important, especially in regard to thirteen-year-old’s who haven’t been reared in a Christian home.
Furthermore, AOO doesn’t address the fact that raising teens can be a life and death warfare. The book seems more suited for suburban Christianity than real life. I have to believe that parents dwelling in the turmoil and darkness of this warfare would find the book trite.
Paul Tripp proffers a child rearing that is gospel instruction only, and excludes “the discipline of the Lord.” Throughout the book, he chides discipline and promotes a “speaking to the heart.” Therefore, it is a hearing of the gospel, but a treatise against putting what is heard “into practice.” Therefore, his followers will not find the blessings of James 1:25, and their houses will be like the ones built upon the sand; broken – down.
paul
How and Why “Gospel-Driven” Sanctification / Sonship Theology Creates Cult-Like Churches
In all of my writings on gospel-driven sanctification / gospel sanctification, and its apparent mother, Sonship Theology, I have primarily addressed the error, and not its ill effects on discipleship and people’s lives. Basically, refutation of false doctrine has prevention in mind, not theological debate for entertainment purposes.
My firsthand experience with a “gospel centered” church is applicable here because this same church and its leaders are well respected in Reformed circles, and especially among those who propagate gospel-driven sanctification. Paul David Tripp speaks at this particular church often, and others such as Stewart Scott and Robert Jones have recently participated in major events there as well. Therefore, it is fair to conclude that this particular church’s activities are not considered to be abnormal among “gospel centered” persuasions.
The church I am using as an example regarding the “what,” (I will write about the “how” last) would classify themselves as being a New Covenant Theology church. They consider “Theology of the Heart, redemptive-historical hermeneutics, gospel-driven sanctification, and Christian hedonism to be tenets of NCT. What does this church and many others look like as a result of this theology?
Foremost, the leadership is very controlling. Members must have permission from the elders to vacate membership status. Those who attempt to leave membership for “unbiblical reasons” can be placed under church discipline. I have personally counseled former parishioners of said church on how to “get out of there” with minimal stress, and how to leave without being placed under church discipline. At this particular church, leaving for doctrinal reasons is considered “unbiblical.” In one particular case where the elders deemed the reason for departure “biblical,” the parishioner informed me that the chairman of the elders told him, “We would never prevent you from leaving for that reason.”
These elders are also very controlling in the area of thought. In a sermon preached by one of its elders entitled, “How to Listen to a Sermon” the following idea was introduced: Christians are not able to grow spiritually from personal study, but must only learn from sitting under preaching; specifically, preaching by the elders at that church. Here is an excerpt from the manuscript:
“You think, perhaps, that [you] can fill up the other half of the plate with personal study, devotions, or quiet times, or a radio program. Beloved, you cannot. Scripture is relatively quiet on such practices. [Particularly on the issue of radios]. But on preaching, the case is clear and strong. Neglect preaching and neglect your soul. I know that some are kept from services for legitimate reasons which are out of their control, but I doubt that is the case for most. I beseech you, change your ways for the good of this people and for the good of your own selves. Give the Word its rightful place. As I have often said, there is no better place you could be than here, under the preaching of the Word.”
Of course, the first thing that would come to mind for any thinking Christian is the biblical account of the Bereans who studied the Scriptures on their own to determine the truthfulness of Paul’s teaching. But according to this elder, the account in Acts 17 wasn’t referring to that, but rather was illustrating the proper way to listen to a sermon:
“The text here implies that there was an interactive nature between three entities: The preacher, the hearers, and the Word. Note this cycle: Paul, from the Word, delivers words. The Bereans, from Paul’s words, go to the Word. The Word cycles from God, through the preacher, to the people, back to the Word, and this, verse 12 tells us, produced belief in the God of the Word.”
In other words, personal study alone cannot produce belief; preaching from an elder must be part of the “cycle” that produces belief (notice the emphasis on “belief” rather than increased knowledge per the progressive justification element of gospel sanctification). In fact, he said that personal study only “flavors” the preaching:
“ So a good preparation for the public preaching of the Word is the private consumption of the Word. It will be the seasoning that brings out the flavor – salt on your French fries, if you will”
So, personal Bible study isn’t the food, it’s just the flavoring. And, personal Bible study is for “flavoring,” not discernment. Buyer beware.
In another category under mind control, separate small groups that meet during the week under the supervision of individual elders in homes of members are instructed not to associate, or speak with members who have left for doctrinal reasons. Also, the primary purpose of the meetings is to get feedback from the parishioners on what was taught the previous Sunday, and fielding objections or concerns. In other “gospel centered” churches, these mid-week meetings are closed to outsiders, or non-members. These meetings have also been known to produce weird occurrences like the time an elder unexpectedly produced all of his financial records in plain view of the group for their inspection. A parishioner confided in me that he found the incident to be surreal, and more information than he cared to know about.
Unknown, for the most part, is the gospel-driven use of what’s called redemptive church discipline. It is a staple of these churches, and it is a very broad use of church discipline. Reformed Christians who join “gospel centered” churches assume it is a reference to traditional forms of church discipline. Parishioners can be placed in this process for any sin, and without any prior notice or inclination. It is not the normal process of inquisitive steps to determine a Christian’s willingness to repent, but more like a counseling process in which elders judge when the parishioner has actually repented. Verbal repentance on the part of the subject is not accepted. Members are not free to leave membership while in this process without being excommunicated for supposedly attempting to vacate membership while in the midst of an unresolved sin issue. Those who dispute gospel sanctification are often placed into the process to convert them to a “redemptive” view of sanctification. They either convert, or they’re excommunicated. Accounts of “gospel centered” churches using this process to control parishioners is vast.
However, the major complaint coming out of these churches is the ignoring of clear biblical mandates by their elders. Parishioners are often perplexed by this. But this is because the elders of these churches believe the Bible is solely for the purpose of showing forth redemptive principles (ie., the gospel) and not instruction. Per New Covenant Theology, they are only obligated to a “higher law of love” which replaced biblical imperatives. The idea is the following: all actions done with the motive of love are righteous. As Francis Chan wrote, “….because when we are loving, we can’t sin”(Crazy Love p.102). As in one case when an elder was caught counseling someone’s wife without the husband’s knowledge – his defense was that he did so “in love.” Therefore, just about anything goes in gospel-driven churches, and well published accounts include excommunicating hundreds of members at one time for non-attendance, which is a questionable act when Scripture is considered to say the least.
How does this happen? First, it begins with a niche doctrine. Propagators often admit that gospel sanctification is a “radical departure” from orthodox doctrine. Those are the words of the propagators, not mine. Any movement that begins with a niche doctrine is in danger of becoming a cult, that’s Cult Apologetics 101. My research has made the following evident: the doctrine was conceived by a man named Jack Miller in, or about 1980.
Secondly, the niche doctrine draws leaders who are more interested in being unique than being in the truth. Take note of what one of the elders of the aforementioned church said while introducing a Sunday school class teaching Christian hedonism: “This doctrine is what makes us unique.” Whenever the goal is to be unique, trouble is not far behind.
Thirdly, niche doctrines and a striving to be different leads to subjectivity and confusion because the leaders are constantly striving to make the doctrine fit with reality and orthodoxy. This results in the kind of events mentioned above.
Fourthly, these elements mixed with the fact that most Reformed churches are autonomous in their polity is an extremely dangerous combination. Basically, the leadership is not accountable and the congregation is on their own.
Niche doctrines, the control of members in thought and action, the ignoring of clear biblical mandates, misuse of unbiblical church discipline in order to control parishioners through fear, manipulation, and intimidation; this is how the “gospel centered” leaders of our day adorn their vile doctrine. Therefore, perhaps they should be named with the cult leaders of ages past accordingly.
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
4 comments