Key to understanding Lame Evangelism is Matthew 28:18-20
Last week, my evangelist son-in-law stated it again in his going back to PR presentation: Christians could seem to care less about evangelism. Others would say there is no “seem[ingly]” about it; in fact, we don’t. I believe the key to understanding this reality (and the fix) is in one of the most noted evangelism verses in the Bible, Matthew 28:18-20;
“Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 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, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.’”
Let’s look at this text in order. First, Christians these days are focused on “our identity in Christ.” This comes from postmodern concepts which stress the supposed importance of “knowing our identity.” Only problem is, in attempting to do that, we must first define who we think Christ is. Well, in the Holy Spirit’s evangelism verse, He speaks of Christ’s identity, not ours: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” And this must be a very important element because He immediately follows this statement with: “Therefore.” Christ has been given ALL authority in HEAVEN and EARTH. He is the absolute potentate of the universe and most certainly the absolute dictator-elect of planet Earth. He is the King of kings and the Lord of lords. That means He has authority, He is an authoritative God.
However, in our church culture, He is anything but that. He is our intimate, lovable boyfriend. As the number one contemporary Christian song of our time states it- it can’t be about authority, it has to be “more like falling in love.” And have you heard? John Piper says Christ is “the happy God” and primarily sees the world through “the lens of His happiness.”Also, it really doesn’t matter what our King says, no, but rather, “it’s who He is as a PERSON.” The thesis of one of the most popular Christian books of our time (“Crazy Love” by Francis Chan) propagates the idea that a real relationship with Christ is intrinsically tied to discovering who He is as a real person while being free from concern about anything Christ would command. You know, the kind of things Lord’s do; commandments and stuff like that. So obviously, when we are presenting Christ to the world, personal and cultural preferences may take precedent over anything in Scripture that may be perceived as our King’s mandate(s). Christ as Savior and happy boyfriend – Lord is optional.
This is the premise of all of my points here: The Holy Spirit empowers evangelism. My first point is; He won’t empower people who don’t even know who Christ is and how to act like it. Christ said that evangelism must be according to His AUTHORITY. No authority, no evangelism.
Secondly, our church culture cannot get it into their heads that Christ doesn’t want to save people, He wants to “make disciples.” To say that the “gospel“ has suffocated discipleship is an extreme understatement. Christ is looking for able followers / worshipers, not mere converts. The fact that Christians do not know how to take “the mind of Christ”(1Cor 2:16) and apply it to their lives is evident by the fact that they go to “experts” for their problems. Fact of the matter is, most Christians will tune into Oprah Winfrey for answers to life’s tough questions before they will go to their pastor, and for good reason, the pastor doesn’t have the answers and everybody knows it. If you want to know how many stones David picked up out of the brook (and the name of the brook) to slay Goliath, you go to your pastor. If you need answers to life’s difficult questions, you go to a spawn of Sigmund Freud. The word is out, Dr. Phil can save a marriage before most pastors will even get over the initial shock (or disdain) that their parishioner would even ask them how to do such a thing.
Furthermore, the world knows something that the church doesn’t know. Most people change via problems; and what they discover about those problems that come into their lives. “Oprah” is the most popular TV show of all human history, and its theme is life, and the problems thereof. It’s a how to show. Get over it; God is a problem centered counselor. (Adam, Cain, Job, etc., etc., etc., etc.,). Hence, a church I used to go to had twelve converts in one year through their biblical counseling program (back when they knew how). Keep in mind: evangelism is problem centered counseling that the whole world needs. Their lost – that’s a problem, and your the counselor (or should be) that has God’s solution to the problem.
In the Old Testament, two lepers who were thrown out of Jerusalem went back to the besieged city to inform them that they had discovered life-saving provisions. That’s what you do when you have information that can save people’s lives; you go and tell. Christians today have no motivation to tell because they really don’t see where the deeper knowledge of God makes a difference in their own lives. Get ’em saved and then send them to Oprah? Christians will find better things to do while pretending that being a Christian is really different.
That was the problem with the first gospel wave from about 1950 to 1980. “Bag ’em and tag ’em, then send ’em to Oprah. The second gospel wave (1980 to present) says: “The same gospel that saved you, also disciples (sanctifies) you.” Hence, we are all leaving church with the gospel coming out of our ears! The mantra of the second gospel wave says: “We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day.” Other spiritual brainiacs claim: “We never leave the gospel and supposedly move on to deeper / other things.” But this is in direct contradiction to Hebrews 6:1 which states: “Therefore let us move beyond the elementary teachings about Christ and be taken forward to maturity, not laying again the foundation….” In fact, throughout the Scriptures, the gospel is spoken of being a “foundation” that we build on (1Cor 3:10-15 for example). The “gospel” is killing evangelism because immature Christians make lousy evangelist. In fact, the Holy Spirit will not use them.
Thirdly, Christ is not looking for lousy worshipers. He is looking for disciples who learn “all that I have commanded” (ie., about ALL areas of life). Consider the popular “worship” song, “It’s All About You” [Christ]. The following was suggested to me: “That’s an awesome worship song because worship is all about Christ.” My response: “NO it isn’t! Worship is not all about Christ. Again, Christ must, for lack of a better term, be “allowed” to TELL US who He is and what He wants! Christ said we must worship “in spirit and in truth.” Worship is far more than raising our hands in church and using a song to focus on the “person” of Christ. Worship is how we talk to our wife. Worship is what kind of job we do at work. The better the disciple, the better the worship, because the definition of a disciple is “teaching them to obey all that I have commanded.” God is looking for true worshipers, and true worship is according to truth (John 4:23).
If God is not looking for lousy worshipers, neither is the Holy Spirit. A church that has a heavy focus on discipleship will find much cooperation and empowerment from the Spirit.
paul
4 Hyper-Grace Myths: God Loves Everybody, Backslidden Christians, Sinners Saved by Grace, and it’s wrong to Fear God
As some know, I am dating a fellow Southern Baptist named Susan. We did not meet in the same church, so we are presently going to both by alternating back and forth. This post is sparked by the fact that I have been able to offend parishioners in both churches via Sunday school discussions. I did this at Susan’s church first while we were discussing “backslidden” Christians during Sunday school. I suggested to the class that it is wrong to give “backslidden” Christians assurance of their supposed salvation while in a state of perpetual rebellion; it was not well received.
Then in Sunday school last week while we were at my church I repeated my offensive behavior by suggesting that God does not Love everybody following a comment by someone in the class to the contrary. And while I am at it, I would like to throw in two more Christian clichés that I have suffered by throughout my Christian life: we are “sinners” saved by grace, and as Christians, we shouldn’t have any fear of God.
But before I begin, why does it matter? My answer to this question is my belief that how we think about these issues has a profound effect on evangelism and discipleship.
First, does God love everybody? Do we really want to tell unbelievers that God loves them and has a wonderful plan for their life? I understand the angle: “if you would just give your life to the Lord, you would find true happiness!” “Don’t you understand? God loves you!” (assuming that knowledge will motivate people to be saved).
And what about John 3:16? “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” If you think about it, this verse probably means that God’s love could potentially love everyone without distinction, but is conditional upon their belief in His Son. The second part of the verse seems to add that condition. Why do I say that? Because of what Psalms 11:5 says: “The LORD tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence.” In regard to the righteous and unrighteous, Romans 9:13 says: “As it is written, ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’”
Even those who want to believe that God loves everyone must concede that God does not love unbelievers the same way that He loves us as believers. Matthew 7:23 records the words Christ will say to some: “Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’” Of course, this doesn’t mean that Christ never knew who they were, but rather refers to intimacy (Genesis 4:1, Gen. 19:5, 8). Christ never knew them or loved them intimately. So, to simply tell unbelievers that God loves them is to allow them to assume God loves them in the same way he loves believers which at the very least is false. Furthermore, it is a half-truth because it is also true that God hates them as well, so to only mention the love part is only half of the truth. It should go without saying that it is very important for unbelievers to have a truthful and accurate picture of their standing before God while being evangelized.
Secondly, should we say anything to professing Christians to give them assurance of salvation when they are living a disobedient lifestyle? Should we just label them “backslidden” and patiently wait for God to deal with them when he pleases, if at all? Should our reasoning sound like the following?: “Well, at least they are saved. It will all be good in the end. Besides, we shouldn’t judge.” But isn’t giving them assurance of their standing with God making a judgment as well? So, do we want our judgments to be truthful, or merely positive? Actually, I wouldn’t make any judgment; I would follow Scripture which would certainly forbid giving comfort, or encouragement to people living in a lifestyle of disobedience to God.
The Scriptures are clear; a disobedient lifestyle is indicative of unbelievers regardless of their claims otherwise: “Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous” (1John 3:7). “By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother” (1John 3:10). The first chapter of 2Peter also makes it clear that we make our calling and election “sure” by “adding” spiritual virtues to our life. Therefore, disobedient persons who have assurance of salvation are a biblical anomaly. Do I believe that many well meaning Christians are unwittingly making some unbelievers as comfortable as possible until they one day wake-up forever separated from God? I say with great concern, yes.
Thirdly, are we “sinners saved by grace”? No, we are not. We are born again (John 3:7), new creatures (2Corintians 5:17), who sin at times (1John 1:8). There is a significant difference. “Sinners” are those who have a life characterized by sin; that’s not us. The English dictionary defines “sinner” via the synonym “evildoer.” We are not evildoers, that’s a biblical description of the unregenerate. Clichés such as this are not healthy nomenclatures among Christians and send the wrong message. Any phrase that downplays the vast difference in spiritual abilities between the saints and unbelievers tends to neutralize Christians. This vast difference between the two is a major theme in the book of Ephesians. If the distinction is blurred, Christians will behave accordingly. “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.”
Lastly, is it wrong for Christians to fear God? Francis Chan, in his book, “Crazy Love” describes his own fear of God as a time in his life when he was spiritually immature. Now that he is supposedly mature, he describes his present fear of God as “reverent intimacy.” Likewise, throughout out my own Christian life I have been continually taught that “fear” means “reverence.” This eliminates a very important sanctification element in the lives of believers: a healthy fear of God.
Throughout the New Testament, Christ and the Holy Spirit use fear of God as a positive motivator for proper behavior and spiritual growth. In fact, Christ commands Christians to fear God in Matthew 10:28; “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” It is also interesting to note that no fear of God is usually associated with unbelievers: “Transgression speaks to the wicked deep in his heart; there is no fear of God before his eyes” (Psalm 36:1). Furthermore, Philippians 2:12 should make it clear what kind of fear is being talked about: “Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling….” The word “trembling” should adequately qualify the word “fear” in this passage of Scripture. Here again, we have an imperative to fear God.
In the Apostolic Age, Christians might have been getting overly caught-up in “saved by grace alone.” Whatever the reason was exactly, God sent the church a wake-up call via Ananias and Sephira (Acts 5:1-11). The results are then stated in verses 11, “Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events,” and 13, “No one else dared join them, even though they were highly regarded by the people.” And also 14, “Nevertheless, more and more men and women believed in the Lord and were added to their number” [obviously, those who really meant business]. In addition to this point, Proverbs 1:7 says, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.” Throughout proverbs and Psalms, fear of God is associated with wisdom that unbelievers do not have. Throughout the New Testament, fear of God is used as a motivator to do what’s right: “and that in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him. The Lord will punish men for all such sins, as we have already told you and warned you” (1 Thess. 4:6); “Do not grumble against one another, brothers, so that you may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing at the door” (James 5:9); “For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep” (1 Corinthians 11:29).
Therefore, does Francis Chan and many others like him do the church harm by teaching that Christians shouldn’t fear God? Yes they do, obviously. To the contrary, they should have the heart of the Psalmist: “Come, O children, listen to me; I will teach you the fear of the LORD” (34:11).
In a time such as ours when an overemphasis on the gospel among the already redeemed replaces discipleship, Christians are living on a steady diet of sound bites that taste good. I hope this post provokes many to rather “…. demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2Corintians 10:6).
paul
Jason Gray’s Anthem for Chan’s “Crazy Love”
“This half gospel that excludes Christ as Lord also begs the question: when we get to heaven, can we call Christ ‘sweety-pie’? Or how about, ‘honey-bunch’?”
I wrote a review the other day on Francis Chan’s book, “Crazy Love.” In the review I state my case concerning the book’s overall antinomian theme. Basically, Chan attempts to make the same case echoed by Paul David Tripp in “How People Change”; namely, that a relationship with Christ isn’t about biblical imperatives being applied to life, but rather a relationship with Him based on “intimate” knowledge derived from creation and seeing Jesus in every verse of the Bible. After all, according to Tripp, “Christ is a person, not a cognitive concept.” This also apes the Postmodern notion that the Bible is a grand narrative and not a book of propositional truths. Supposedly, this deeper knowledge then leads to increased faith, which allows the Holy Spirit to do everything for us. John Piper calls this “beholding as a way of becoming.”
As I also stated, Chan’s book synthesizes Justification and sanctification, narrowing our role in the sanctification process to little more than faith only. Since our limited role in sanctification needs to be embellished, one of the weird concepts that has emerged from this contemporary antinomian doctrine is the idea that our relationship with Christ should be an intimate love affair, resulting in a mushy exuberance of love towards Christ and others. Hence, Chan’s book is replete with what I called “Jesus is my boyfriend” theology.
Well, just this morning I was coming home from being kept out too late by my girlfriend (this comment is just a test to see if she reads my articles; that’s my story and I’m sticking to it), and thinking to myself: “did I go too far in the article?” I kid you not, at that moment, a song by Jason Gray came on the radio entitled “More Like Falling in Love.” The words blew me away; the song is a perfect anthem for Chan’s book. When I got home, I googled the song and found the lyrics on a post by a girl named Christy ( http://community.livejournal.com/ljchristians/2504072.html). In a shocking display of discernment, she said the following in regard to the song: “….when I heard this new song, something gnawed at me. Perhaps I was being cynical, but I felt like the lyrics were emphasizing an antinomian “Jesus is my adorable boyfriend!” (By the way, I was in a church this morning where a praise song referred to Christ as the “Darling” of heaven). Christy then posted the lyrics:
“More Like Falling in Love” lyrics by Jason Gray
Oooo
Give me rules, I will break them
Show me lines, I will cross them
I need more than a truth to believe
I need a truth that lives, moves, and breathes
To sweep me off my feet
Its gotta be
More like falling in love
Than something to believe in
More like losing my heart
Than giving my allegiance
Caught up, called out
Come take a look at me now
Its like I’m falling, Ohhhh
Its like I’m falling in love
Give me words, I’ll misuse them
Obligations, I’ll missplace them
Cuz all religion ever made of me
Was just a sinner with a stone tied to my feet
It never set me free
Its gotta be
More like falling in love
Than something to believe in
More like losing my heart
Than giving my allegiance
Caught up, called out
Come take a look at me now
Its like I’m falling
Its like I’m falling in love
Love, Love
Deeper and deeper
It was love that made me a believer
In more than a name, a faith, a creed
Falling in love with Jesus brought the change in me
Its gotta be
More like falling in love
Than something to believe in
More like losing my heart
Than giving my allegiance
Caught up, called out
Come take a look at me now
Its like I’m falling, Ohhhh
Its like I’m falling in love
I’m falling in love
Hey Christy: “ya think?” Lately, this contemporary antinomian doctrine sometimes known as “Gospel Sanctification” is the gift that just keeps on giving; this has to be the easiest post I have ever done on the subject. This half gospel that excludes Christ as Lord also begs the question: when we get to heaven, can we call Christ “sweety-pie”? Or how about, “honey-bunch”?
Francis Chan’s “Crazy Love” is Really Antinomian Puppy-Love
“He is clearly saying that when we love we are free from the Law; in fact, we don’t have to worry about….’commands.’ In other words, love is measured by some other standard than biblical imperatives, presumably, good feelings. Do you think that is unfair of me to say? Well then, look at how he wants you to determine if you are loving or not: ‘Do you feel free in your Christian life?'”
Before I comment on “Crazy Love” by Francis Chan (2008), let me set the table. There is a “let go and let God” theology sweeping through Christianity which is sometimes referred to as “Gospel Sanctification.” Hereafter, I will refer to it as “GS.” Let go and let God theology, for all practical purposes, is antinomianism because it either advocates an inability to uphold the Law by Christians or the view that Christians are not obligated to uphold it in God’s eyes. Either way, use of the Law in the life of a Christian is denied.
Basically, GS teaches that we are sanctified in the exact same way that we are justified, by faith and repentance alone. Therefore, if the Law (by this term “Law” I mean the Scriptures in general and imperatives in particular) can’t save us, neither can it be used or recognized in sanctification either. They use Galatians 3:2,3 as a proof text for this position.
Secondly, it teaches that Christ came to not only die for our sins, but to fulfill the law by obeying it perfectly with His life. In essence, it teaches that Christ obeyed the Law for us, and His perfect obedience and fulfillment of the Law is imputed to us in the same way righteousness is imputed to us in salvation by faith alone. Therefore, we are not obligated to the Law. This is sometimes referred to as “the imputed active obedience of Christ.”
Thirdly, It teaches that Christ not only fulfilled the Law, but replaced it with a new Law that only has one command: love God and others. Furthermore, in only being obligated by this one Law, our proper fulfillment of this one Law is judged by our intentions and conscience, not necessarily biblical imperatives. They use Matthew 22: 36-40 as a proof text for this position.
Fourthly, according to advocates, acts of true love will always be accompanied by a willing spirit and joy. Nothing should ever be done out of mere duty. The old Christian adage “obey God whether you feel like it or not” is considered to be anathema. Acts of true love are often described as a “mere natural flow.”
Fifthly, GS propagates the idea that Christians are still spiritually dead, and the only life in us is Christ working through the Holy Spirit. That’s why true love can always be expected to be a mere natural flow, because it is really Christ doing the work through us. They use Galatians 2:20 as a proof text for this position. This text is also used to advocate sanctification by faith alone.
Sixthly, sanctification is only accomplished through faith and deep introspection for purposes of repentance, which empties our soul of sin, and results in Christ living through us.
Seventh, the Bible’s sole purpose is to aid us in faith and repentance. As we see “pictures of Jesus” in the Bible, we learn more about who He is, and see Him more clearly. Our faith is then increased and we are changed from “glory to glory” (2 Corinthians 3:18 is the proof text for that). The Bible also aids us in looking deep within our souls to see sin that we need to repent of. In addition, all of the vast imperatives we see in the Bible makes us more thankful for Christ, knowing that we could never uphold all of those commands and He has done it for us. Thank goodness they (commands) have all been abrogated by the love of Christ working through us, according to them, that is.
Eighth, since the primary goal is to know more of who Christ is (as opposed to learning what He has said for the purpose of applying it to our lives), which increases our faith and love for Him, we don’t necessarily limit that knowledge to Scripture. General revelation is seen as being almost as valuable, because the idea is to get to know Christ as a person, “not a cognitive concept that we apply to life” (Paul David Tripp). This is eerily similar to Postmodern thinking.
Obviously, I wouldn’t have gone through all of the trouble to explain the above if I didn’t think “Crazy Love” (hereafter “CL”) propagated Gospel Sanctification. Per the usual, advocates of GS partake in careful word-craft; it goes without saying that my before-stated description would be rejected out of hand by most Evangelicals. Though there are hints of GS in the first half of the book, the doctrine is not prevalent until page 101, thats when elements of the doctrine start becoming obvious.
Somewhat unique in CL is the heavy dose of “Jesus is my boyfriend” theology. Chan pours this on really thick, even by John Piper’s standard, who is also an advocate of GS. Piper, who likens true saving faith to a deep, romantic-like love for Christ, is quoted at least once in CL. Let’s face it, if we can’t love our Lord by obeying “everything I have commanded,” (as in most GS based books, the Lordship of Christ is conspicuously missing) then something else has to fill the gap; such as, a “sincere,” syrupy like romantic love similar to teenage puppy-love. In fact, according to Chan, regarding the account of his grandmother’s relationship with Christ: He was her “lover” (p. 100).
Throughout the book, Chan draws conclusions about how we should experience our relationship with Christ from horizontal relationships; namely, romantic ones. Hence, “Because when you’re wildly in love with someone, it changes everything.” This is indicative of the eighth element, which puts general revelation on the same par with specific revelation (The Bible). There is a very heavy dose of this in the beginning of the book as Chan emphasizes the study of creation in order to understand Christ as a “person.” Chan also uses the GS phrase “word pictures” to describe the Bible throughout CL. On pages 34 and 35, Chan categorizes general revelation and the Bible together as two ways of knowing God as set against what we can’t know about Him: “So far we have talked about things we can see with our own eyes, things we know about creation, and some of the attributes of God as revealed in the Bible. But many facets of God expand beyond our comprehension.”
Besides an overemphasis on general revelation as a matching bookend with specific revelation, there is only a hint of the GS doctrine in the first 100 pages. The first thing I began to notice was the dissing of practical application and obedience, which are both antithetical to GS doctrine. In regard to our supposed paramount goal of knowing Christ as a person rather than what he demands of us (number eight), Chan says the following on page 30: “If the ‘gravest question’ before us really is what God Himself is like, how do we learn to know Him?” Is the “gravest” question before Christians that of who God is? Or, is what God wants us to do of equal importance? I think we know the answer to that, and a balanced perspective by Chan is conspicuously missing throughout the book.
Then on page 101, Chan takes a hard left turn and launches into full-blown GS doctrine. After denying throughout the book (in nuanced fashion) that we are slaves obligated to obey Christ (because that doesn’t fit the gushy *Jesus as boyfriend* prism), and that God would use fear, guilt, or reward to motivate us, he says that Galatians 5:13-14 teaches the following: “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. Do you feel free in your Christian life?”
Just please stop and think about what he is saying. Words mean things. He is clearly saying that when we love we are free from the Law; in fact, we don’t have to worry about….”commands.” In other words, love is measured by some other standard than biblical imperatives, presumably, good feelings. Do you think that is unfair of me to say? Well then, look at how he wants you to determine if you are loving or not: “Do you feel free in your Christian life?” And: When we work for Christ out of obligation, it feels like work. But when we truly love Christ, our work is a manifestation of that love, and it feels like love” (page 110). Is that true? Does obedience to Christ always “feel (s) like love”?
The whole line of thought here clearly falls under element number three of GS doctrine. Furthermore, let’s be good Bereans and take a look at Galatians 5:13-14, the biblical text Chan cites to make his point:
“You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.'”
Paul is talking about our freedom from the Law in regard to being saved, and then using it as an excuse to live any way we want to: “Hey, I’m saved anyway, and the Law can’t get me into heaven, so why not live any way I want to?” Because it’s self-focused and the antithesis of love, that’s why. But Paul is not saying that love has no standard other than itself because it replaced the Law. That is a classic antinomian misrepresentation of that passage. In the same statement, Chan even comforts his readers by assuring them that they are not sinning by loving apart from biblical imperatives / guidelines: “….because when we are loving, we can’t sin” [that’s why we supposedly don’t need to worry about “burdensome commands”].
Chan reiterates his point by quoting the apostle in verse 6 of the same chapter: “The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love” This doesn’t mean, as Chan implies, that love interprets itself because it comes from an undefined realization of who Christ is via a personal, nebulous, and supposedly intimate relationship. Do you think that is unfair as well? Here is what Chan says on page 104: “Something mysterious, even supernatural must happen in order for genuine love for God to grow in our hearts. The Holy Spirit has to move in our lives. It is a remarkable cycle: Our prayers for more love result in love, which naturally causes us to pray more, which results in more love….” The “cycle” that Chan describes here is nowhere to be found in the Scriptures, but rather, “If you love me, keep my commandments.” Or, “Peter, do you love me? …. [then] feed my sheep.” At the very least, Chan is propagating a love that always comes naturally through a cycle of prayer only. In the best case that can be surmised, he is clearly in serious error.
Also, Chan forgets to mention that the apostle Paul also said: “Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts” (1Corinthians 7:19). About a year ago, I counseled a fellow who was having trouble with a church leadership that propagates the GS doctrine. He was utterly perplexed as to why they seemed to completely ignore clear biblical directives regarding his situation. The answer is simple: if their motive was love, they did not deem themselves as obligated to biblical imperatives. Throughout the rest of the book, Chan seems to make strong statements regarding the need to obey, but what he is talking about is obedience to the one single Law of love, not biblical imperatives. This is the type of double-speaking deception that I have come to expect from propagators of the GS doctrine.
Throughout the rest of the book after page 101, Chan draws a tight GS line that propagates spiritual growth by a narrow, passive concept of meditation and prayer only (p. 104, 148, 170, to cite a few), and acts of love always experienced as a mere natural flow accompanied by joy (p. 110, 120, 129, to name a few). It is fair to say that the second half of the book is saturated with GS doctrine in its usual nuanced form. But page 203 is worth mentioning before I close. Chan presents Galatians 3:3 as a Pauline contention against effort in the sanctification process which is also supposedly a false gospel. This is a typical GS stance. Concerning this passage, Chan says the following:
“I think each of us has a strong tendency to attempt to wrestle control from the Spirit and “do” this life on our own. Each of us tends to switch from living the gospel of grace to trusting in a system of works. That’s why Paul brings up this issue with the churches in Galatia.”
So, effort on our part (Christians) to “’do’ this life” is supposedly denying the gospel that originally saved us. This is the most basic element of GS which is the synthesizing of justification and sanctification. Obviously, if we can’t do anything to be saved, neither can we participate in sanctification either except for the same role we play in justification, faith and repentance only. However, Paul is not talking about sanctification in Galatians 3:3. He was talking about the Galatians possibly denying the gospel that saved them by faith alone, and doing so by returning to a salvation by works. Apparently, they were being tempted to consummate this decision by being circumcised, and therefore denying the true gospel by proclaiming a false one. This is absolutely clear by the way Paul summarizes his argument:
“Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace” (Galatians 5:2-4).
Paul makes it clear that he was talking about justification (“ You who are trying to be justified by law”) and not sanctification. Besides, specifically, Paul is talking about their ultimate goal of being completely transformed (glorification) in 3:3, not sanctification, or their role in the growing process. Paul discuses that in the second part of the book, the first part deals with justification. This can be clearly seen by the fact that Paul uses the word “justification” at least ten times in the book while “sanctification” is not used once, even though it is a biblical word in the same way justification is (1 Corinthians 1:30 and 6:11; both are listed together with glorification).
It is no different than someone who is saved by the true gospel , but then leaves an orthodox community of believers for a community that professes a false gospel. Like Paul, we would “stand in doubt” of them. Besides, specifically, Paul is talking about their ultimate goal of being completely transformed (glorification) in 3:3, not sanctification, or their role in the growing process. I believe the Young’s Literal Translation demonstrates this well:
“so thoughtless are ye! having begun in the Spirit, now in the flesh do ye end? “
In the final analysis, CL adorns GS with some challenges that the church needs to hear, but Chan’s solution is a false doctrine. The first hundred passages were subtle enough to keep me in denial while eating red herrings and ignoring straw men used to diss the conventional hearing of God’s word and the proper application to life thereof. Which is very annoying.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
4 comments