James Fowler Christianity Is Not A Religion

CHRISTIANITY
IS NOT
RILIGION

}AMIS A. IOWLIR

TALI OI CONTINTS

s Chrislianily is Nol ReIigion
z; Chrislianily is Nol a ook-ReIigion
,s Chrislianily is Nol MoraIily
8 Chrislianily is Nol a eIief-Syslem
Chrislianily is Nol IislemoIogy
so8 Chrislianily is Nol an IdeoIogicaI Olion
ss Chrislianily is Nol RoIe-IIaying
ss Chrislianily is Nol an 'ism'
sz8 Chrislianily is Nol IrobIem SoIving
ss Chrislianily is Chrisl!

s8 }ames A. IovIer
WWW.CHRISTINYOU.NIT

Cnrisiianiiq nas nisiakcn|q |ccn !cjinc! an! !cscri|c! as a rc|igicn in unicn
ncra|iiq an! |c|icj-sqsicn in ccrrcspcn!cncc ic inc Bcck arc rcgar!c! as inc
|asis cj inc rc|c-p|aqing an! prc||cn-sc|ting cj inc Cnrisiian |ijc.

Nci iruc!

Cnrisiianiiq is Cnrisi!

s
1 Chrislianily is Nol ReIigion

Thc nccd nI thc hnur is lo dislinguish and differenliale belveen "reIig-
ion" and Chrislianily. Mosl eoIe in lhe Weslern vorId have so Iong
idenlified lhese lerms and lhoughl lhem lo be synonymous and
equivaIenl, lhal il lakes a shar can-oener of ralionaI argumenl, or lhe
sharer sliII "vord of God" (Heb. 4:12), lo reveaI lhe conlrasling di-
cholomy belveen Chrislianily and "reIigion." This alleml lo differen-
liale belveen lhe lvo may indeed be resumluous, bul on lhe olher
hand il mighl be used of God lo bring lhe reveIalion of siriluaI un-
derslanding lhal vouId aIIov someone lo make lhe imorlanl dislinc-
lion and en|oy lhe reaIily of }esus' Iife.
Many erslvhiIe Chrislian lhinkers have made lhe dislinclion be-
lveen "reIigion" and Chrislianily. In confronling lhe sixleenlh cenlury
reIigionism of Roman CalhoIicism, Marlin Lulher exIained, "I have
oflen said lhal lo seak and |udge righlIy in lhis maller ve musl care-
fuIIy dislinguish belveen a ious (reIigious) man and a Chrislian."
1

The Danish hiIosoher, Soren Kierkegaard, vas exosing lhe nine-
leenlh cenlury reIigionism of lhe slale church in Denmark in his vork
enlilIed Aiiack cn Cnrisicn!cn, vherein he noled lhal il is mosl difficuIl
lo exIain lo someone vho lhinks lhal lhey are a Chrislian aIready,
vhal il means lo be a Chrislian.
2
German lheoIogian, Dielrich on-
hoeffer, slood u lo lhe sineIess reIigionism of lhe German Lulheran
Church during WorId War II and vas kiIIed by lhe Nazis. In his Iciicrs
an! Papcrs jrcn Priscn he sels u lhe anlinomy belveen failh and reIig-
ion and argues for a "nonreIigious" or "reIigionIess Chrislianily."
3

Iar and avay lhe cIearesl deIinealion belveen "reIigion" and Chrisli-
anily is dravn by lhe Sviss lheoIogian, KarI arlh, vho vas vilhoul a
CHRISTIANITY IS NOT RELIGION

z
doubl lhe grealesl lheoIogian of lhe lvenlielh cenlury. In his voIumi-
nous Cnurcn Ocgnaiics, arlh vrole lhal
"lhe reveIalion of God is lhe aboIilion of reIigion."
4

"Il is aIvays lhe sign of definile misunderslanding vhen an alleml is
made lo syslemalicaIIy coordinale reveIalion and reIigion...lo fix lheir
muluaI reIalionshi.
5

"In oosilion lo aII 'reIigionism' lhe rocIamalion of lhe grace of God
is inlroduced as lhe lrulh..."
6

"ReIigion is unbeIief. Il is a concern of...godIess man."
7

"ReIigion is cIearIy seen lo be a human alleml lo anliciale vhal God
in His reveIalion viIIs lo do and does do. Il is lhe allemled reIace-
menl of lhe divine vork by a human manufaclure."
8

"Il is a feebIe bul defianl, an arroganl bul hoeIess, alleml lo creale
somelhing vhich man couId do. In reIigion man boIls and bars himseIf
againsl reveIalion by roviding a subslilule, by laking avay in ad-
vance lhe very lhing vhich has lo be given by God. Il is never lhe
lrulh. Il is a comIele ficlion, vhich has nol onIy IillIe bul no reIalion
lo God."
9

"Whal is lhe urose of lhe universaI alleml of reIigions bul lo an-
liciale God, lo foisl a human roducl inlo lhe Iace of His vord, lo
make our ovn images of lhe One vho is knovn onIy vhere He gives
HimseIf lo be knovn."
10

"The reveIalion of God denies lhal any reIigion is lrue. No reIigion can
sland before lhe grace of God as lrue reIigion."
11

Irench socioIogisl, IegaI schoIar and lheoIogian, }acques IIIuI, in Iike
manner affirms lhal,
"There is no alh Ieading from a IillIe bil of reIigion (of vhalever kind)
lo a IillIe more and finaIIy lo failh. Iailh shallers aII reIigion..."
12


;
"The oosilion belveen reIigion and reveIalion can reaIIy be under-
slood quile simIy. We can reduce il lo a maxim: reIigion goes u,
reveIalion comes dovn.
13

"The cenlraI facl of lhe reveIalion of lhe God of Abraham, Isaac and
}acob, lhe God of }esus Chrisl, is lhal God descends lo humankind.
Never in any vay, under any circumslances can ve ascend lo God,
hovsoever sIighlIy."
14

The American IiscoaIian riesl, Roberl Caon, has an inimicaI
slraighl-forvard vay of exIaining lhe difference belveen reIigion and
Chrislianily.
"AImosl aII eoIe, inside as veII as oulside lhe church, find lhal lhe
nolion of grace slands in conlradiclion lo everylhing lhey undersland
by reIigion."
15

"The goseI of grace is lhe end of reIigion, lhe finaI osling of lhe
CLOSID sign on lhe svealsho of lhe human race's ereluaI slruggIe
lo lhink veII of ilseIf. Ior lhal, al bollom, is vhal reIigion is: man's
veII-meanl bul dim-villed alleml lo arove of his unarovabIe
condilion by doing odd |obs he lhinks some imorlanl Somelhing viII
lhank him for.
"ReIigion, lherefore, is a Ioser, a slriclIy faIIen aclivily. Il has a faiIed
asl and a bankrul fulure. There vas no reIigion in Iden and lhere
von'l be any in heaven, and in lhe meanlime }esus has died and risen
lo ersuade us lo knock il aII off righl nov."
16

"I vanl you lo sel aside lhe nolion of lhe Chrislian reIigion, because il's
a conlradiclion in lerms. You von'l Iearn anylhing osilive aboul reIig-
ion from Chrislianily, and if you Iook for Chrislianily in reIigion, you'II
never find il. To be sure, Chrislianily uses lhe forms of reIigion, and, lo
be dismaIIy honesl, loo many of ils adherenls acl as if il vere a reIig-
ion, bul il isn'l one, and lhal's lhal. The church is nol in lhe reIigion
business, il is in lhe GoseI-rocIaiming business. And lhe goseI is
lhe good nevs lhal aII man's fuss and fealhers over his reIalionshi

vilh God is unnecessary because God, in lhe myslery of lhe Word vho
is }esus, has gone and fixed il u HimseIf. So Iel lhal ass."
17

Many olher slalemenls from Chrislian vrilers couId be adduced, bul
lhese viII suffice lo reresenl lhe avareness of lhe differenlialion be-
lveen "reIigion" and Chrislianily.
Backgrnund nI thc wnrd "rc!iginn"
A brief sludy of lhe elymoIogy of our IngIish vord "reIigion" viII
reveaI lhal ve mighl nol vanl lo aIIov lhe vord "reIigion" lo be asso-
cialed vilh Chrislianily. There are severaI Lalin vords vhich may
have served as lhe origin of our IngIish vord "reIigion." The Lalin
vord rc|igc meanl "lo lie or faslen."
18
A simiIar vord, rc|igic, vas used
lo refer lo "resecl, devolion or suerslilion."
19
|c|igic vas a recogni-
lion lhal men are oflen lied or bound lo God in reverence or devolion.
Il can aIso convey lhe meaning of being bound or lied lo a sel of ruIes
and reguIalions, lo riluaIs of devolion, lo a creedaI beIief-syslem, or lo
a cause, ideoIogy, or rouline. Some have suggesled lhal "reIigion" may
be derived from lhe Lalin vord rc|cgcrc, vhich refers lo re-reading.
There is no doubl lhal "reIigion" is oflen associaled vilh reelilious
riles of Iilurgy and Iilany, and lhe reroduclion of creedaI formuIas
and exressions. Mosl elymoIogisls, hovever, regard lhe IngIish vord
"reIigion" lo be derived from lhe Lalin vord rc|igarc vhich is cIoseIy
aIigned vilh lhe rool vord rc|igc.
20
The refix rc- means "back" or
"again," and lhe vord |igarc refers lo "binding, lying or allaching."
Olher IngIish vords such as "Iigalure," referring lo "somelhing lhal is
used lo bind," and "Iigamenl" vhich "binds lhings logelher," evidence
lhe same rool in lhe Lalin vord |igarc. The Lalin vord rc|igarc, from
vhich our IngIish vord "reIigion" is mosl IikeIy derived, meanl "lo lie
back" or "lo bind u."
The urose of }esus' coming vas nol lo "bind us" or "lie us" lo any-
lhing or anyone, lhough il mighl be argued lhal in lhe recelion of }e-
sus Chrisl by failh lhere is a siriluaI allachmenl of our idenlily vilh
Him. }esus cIearIy indicales lhal He came lo sel us free free lo be func-
lionaI humanily in lhe fuIIesl sense, by aIIoving God lo funclion

,
lhrough us lo His gIory. To some beIieving }evs, }esus exIained lhal
"you shaII knov lhe lrulh, and lhe lrulh shaII make you free" (}ohn
8:32). Iurlher exIanalion of lhe ersonificalion of lhal "lrulh" in Him-
seIf vas lhen made vhen }esus said, "If lherefore lhe Son shaII make
you free, you shaII be free indeed." To lhe GaIalians IauI affirms lhal,
"Il vas for freedom lhal Chrisl sel us free, lherefore do nol be sub|ecl
again lo a yoke of sIavery" by reverling back lo lhe bondage of }evish
reIigion (GaI. 5:1). "You vere caIIed lo freedom, brelhren" (GaI. 5:13),
IauI excIaims. "Where lhe siril of lhe Lord is, lhere is Iiberly" (II Cor.
3:17).
}esus did nol say, "I came lhal you mighl have reIigion, and raclice
il more failhfuIIy," or "I came lhal you mighl have reIigion, and adhere
lo il more commiledIy," or "I came lhal you mighl have reIigion, and
define il more dogmalicaIIy," or "I came lhal you mighl have reIigion,
and defend il more vehemenlIy," or "I came lhal you mighl have reIig-
ion, and lhus behave more moraIIy." Whal }esus said vas, "I came lhal
you mighl have Iife, and have il more abundanlIy" (}ohn 10:10). The
Iife lhal He came lo bring and exress vilhin us and lhrough us is His
Iife. "I AM lhe vay, lhe lrulh and lhe Iife," decIared }esus lo His disci-
Ies (}ohn 14:6). The aoslIe }ohn vrole lhal "He lhal has lhe Son has
Iife, he lhal does nol have lhe Son does nol have Iife" (I }ohn 5:12).
"Chrisl is our Iife," is lhe hrase IauI uses in vriling lo lhe CoIossians
(CoI. 3:4), for Chrislianily is nol "reIigion," bul lhe Iife of }esus Chrisl
exressed in recelive humanily.
Bib!ica! usagc nI thc wnrd "rc!iginn"
A cIoser Iook al lhe bibIicaI usage of lhe vord "reIigion" viII demon-
slrale lhal lhe vord is seIdom used vilh any osilive imIicalion, bul
generaIIy has a negalive connolalion.
When IauI lraveIed lo Alhens he observed an abundance of idoIs,
even an idoI lo an "unknovn god," Iesl lhey mighl have missed any.
IauI slands u and decIares, "Men of Alhens, I observe lhal you are
very reIigious in aII resecls" (Acls 17:22). Whal does IauI mean by re-
ferring lo lheir ervasive idoIalry as being "reIigious`" The Greek vord

lhal IauI used vas !cisi!aincn, vhich is derived from lvo olher Greek
vords: !ci!c, meaning "lo fear or resecl," and !aincn, lhe vord for
"demon." Whal IauI vas saying vas lhal he had observed lhal lhey
had "greal fear or resecl for demons," and vere lhus very reIigious or
suerslilious. Ieslus used lhe same Greek vord lo e|oraliveIy refer lo
lhe }evish reIigion, vhen he exIained lo King Agria lhal lhe }evs
vho broughl charges againsl IauI "had some oinls of disagreemenl
vilh him aboul lheir ovn reIigion" (Acls 25:19).
In his eislIe lo lhe CoIossians, IauI vas confronling lhe regionaI re-
Iigionism of Asia as veII as lhe }udaizing reIigionism lhal conslanlIy
foIIoved his minislry. He vanled lo shov lhe sueriorily of lhe goseI
of grace in }esus Chrisl over aII reIigion. In referring lo lhe moraIislic
aclivilies lhal reIigionisls vere allemling lo imose uon lhe Chris-
lian beIievers in CoIossae, IauI asks, "Why do you submil yourseIf lo
decrees, such as 'Do nol handIe, do nol lasle, do nol louch!'` These are
mallers vhich have lhe aearance of visdom in seIf-made reIigion
and seIf-abasemenl and severe lrealmenl of lhe body, bul are of no
vaIue againsl fIeshIy induIgence" (CoI. 2:20-23). The vord lransIaled
"reIigion" is lhe Greek vord cinc|cinrcskia, vhich is a combinalion of
lvo olher Greek vords: cinc|c meaning "viII, desire, deIighl or Ieas-
ure," and inrcskcia meaning "vorshi or reIigion." IauI is describing
such moraIislic reIigious aclions as "viII-vorshi" of "seIf-made reIig-
ion," aclivilies vhich man imoses uon himseIf and olhers, beIieving
lhal such viIIed seIf-efforl serves as a benefil before God in moraIislic
erformance. IauI denies lhe veracily of such lhinking, regarding such
as mere "seIf-made reIigion," and of no benefil againsl lhe seIfish al-
lerns of fIeshIy induIgence.
}ames exIains lhal, "If anyone lhinks himseIf lo be reIigious, and yel
does nol bridIe his longue bul deceives his ovn hearl, lhis man's reIig-
ion is vorlhIess" (}ames 1:26,27). The Greek vord lhal he uses is
inrcskcia, meaning "vorshi or reIigion." Misreresenlalion of lhe char-
acler of God in our behavior oflen indicales lhal ve are engaging in
"vorlhIess reIigion." }ames conlinues, lhough, lo use inrcskcia in a osi-
live vay vhen he refers lo "ure and undefiIed reIigion" (}ames 1:27),

;
vherein lhe vorlh-shi of God's characler is genuineIy exressed in
raclicaI minislry lo orhans and vidovs, and in lhe exression of lhe
urily of God's characler. In lhal case genuine Chrislian vorshi lran-
sires as ve are recelive lo lhe aclivily of God and exress lhe vorlh-
shi of His characler in our behavior.
In Iighl of lhe redominanlIy negalive inferences of lhe vord "reIig-
ion" in lhe Nev Teslamenl, ve shouId avoid aIying lhis vord lo
Chrislianily.
Christianity and "wnr!d rc!iginns"
IaiIure lo differenliale belveen Chrislianily and "reIigion" has
caused many lo Ium Chrislianily logelher as |usl anolher "reIigion" in
lhe sludy of comaralive vorId reIigions. Their crileria for lhe consid-
eralion of a "reIigion" is mereIy socioIogicaI, sychoIogicaI, creedaI, Ii-
lurgicaI or organizalionaI, aII of vhich are inadequale lo consider lhe
radicaI uniqueness of Chrislianily.
The slory is loId of Gualama uddha, vho Iived some four hundred
years rior lo lhe birlh of }esus Chrisl. He vas dying. Some of his
devolees came lo uddha and asked hov lhey shouId ereluale his
memory. "Hov shouId ve share vilh lhe vorId lhe remembrance of
you` Hov shaII ve memoriaIize you`" uddha resonded, "Don'l
bolher! Il is nol me lhal mallers, il is my leaching lhal shouId be
roagaled and adhered lo lhroughoul lhe vorId."
Does lhal seem lo be seIf-effacing` Does lhal sound Iike a nobIe ideaI
lhal allemls lo avoid ego-cenlricily` "Don'l focus on me, |usl remem-
ber my leaching."
If }esus had said somelhing Iike lhal, il vouId cerlainIy Iegilimize
much of vhal ve observe aII around us loday in lhe so-caIIed "Chris-
lian reIigion." The "Chrislian reIigion" lhal has formed around lhe
leaching of Chrislianily is invoIved in lhe roagalion of various un-
derslandings of }esus' leaching as delermined by various inlerrela-
lions of lhe ibIe. Mosl of lhose vho caIIed lhemseIves "Chrislians" lo-

8
day seem lo lhink lhal }esus advocaled lhe same lhing lhal uddha is
aIIeged lo have ullered. "Don'l focus on me, |usl remember my leach-
ing."
}esus did nol say anylhing Iike lhal! In facl, vhal uddha said is con-
lrary lo everylhing }esus laughl, and everylhing recorded in lhe Nev
Teslamenl scrilures. }esus did nol say, "}usl remember my leaching."
}esus said, "I AM lhe resurreclion and lhe Iife" (}ohn 11:25). "I AM lhe
vay, lhe lrulh and lhe Iife" (}ohn 14:6). He did nol say, "I viII shov
you lhe vay, I viII leach you lhe lrulh, I viII give you lhe Iife." His
ovn indveIIing resence is lhe onIy vay for man lo be man as God
inlended. The reaIily of His erson is lhe lrulh of God. The very er-
sonaI resence of lhe risen Lord }esus is lhe Iife of lhe Living God, lhe
onloIogicaI essence of everylhing He came lo bring lo lhis vorId. In
uddhism lhe erson of uddha may nol be of any imorlance excel
for hisloricaI observalion, bul in Chrislianily lhe Iiving Ierson of }esus
Chrisl is lhe reaIily of God's resence reslored lo mankind.
Anolher slory is loId of Sadhu Sundar Singh, a converl from lhe re-
Iigion of Sikhism lo Chrislianily, vho evenluaIIy became one of India's
mosl veII-knovn Chrislians. A Iuroean rofessor of comaralive re-
Iigions (vho vas himseIf an agnoslic) inlervieved lhe former Sadhu
one day, vilh lhe evidenl inlenlion of shoving him his mislake in re-
nouncing anolher reIigion for vhal he erceived lo be lhe "Chrislian
reIigion."
The rofessor asked Mr. Singh, "Whal have you found in lhe Chris-
lian reIigion lhal you did nol have in your oId reIigion`" Sundar Singh
ansvered, "I have }esus." "Yes, I knov," lhe rofessor reIied some-
vhal imalienlIy, "bul vhal arlicuIar rinciIes or doclrines have
you found lhal you did nol have before`" Sunday Singh reIied, "The
arlicuIar erson I have found is }esus."
Try as he mighl, lhe rofessor couId nol budge him from lhal osi-
lion. He venl avay discomfiled bul lhoughlfuI.

Sundar Singh vas righl. The reIigions of lhe vorId have some fine
leachings, bul lhey Iack lhe erson and Iife of }esus Chrisl, lhe dy-
namic resence of God in man.
A ersonaI friend of mine, iII Hekman, vas once sealed on an air-
Iane and slruck u a conversalion vilh lhe genlIeman sealed nexl lo
him. In lheir conversalion lhe feIIov-assenger exIained lhal he vas
a rofessor of IsIamic Sludies. iII Hekman indicaled lhal he vas a
Chrislian and had been a missionary lo Irian }aya for lvenly years,
and lhal he vas relurning lo Indonesia lo engage in Chrislian leaching.
Their conversalion evenluaIIy incIuded a discussion of lhe exlenl lo
vhich lhe eoIes of Indonesia had converled from lhe redominanl
reIigion of IsIam lo Chrislianily, and a muluaI queslioning of vhelher
lhe Indonesian governmenl slalislics of lhe ercenlages of MusIims
and Chrislians vere accurale. Then lhe rofessor of IsIamic sludies
said somelhing very surrising. He indicaled lhal he lhoughl lhal In-
donesia vouId someday be a rimariIy Chrislian nalion. iII, lhough
obviousIy hoefuI of such, vas laken aback by such a rediclion, and
asked him vhy he lhoughl lhal lhis vouId lake Iace. The rofessor
reIied, "ecause lhe Chrislians have |cn A||an." |cn A||an is lhe Indo-
nesian exression for lhe "Siril of God." This rofessor reaIized lhal
lhere vas a dynamic and over in lhe "Siril of God" lhal vas beyond
anylhing lhal IsIam had in lheir beIief-syslem lhal lraced back lo lhe
leaching of Mohammed. Indeed lhere is, for lhe "Siril of Chrisl" is lhe
vilaI dynamic of lhe Iiving Lord }esus, vho as God comes lo Iive in lhe
Chrislian and emover him for lhe oulvorking of God's characler and
vork. May his surrising rediclion rove lrue!
There are many reIigions in lhe vorId, such as uddhism, Hinduism,
Taoism, Confucianism, Mohammed-anism (IsIam), and }udaism. The
ideoIogies of humanism and communism have aIso been idenlified as
reIigions, as veII as lhe individuaIism of "The American reIigion."
21

The lenels of Chrislianily can aIso be incororaled inlo a reIigion of
"Chrislianism,"
22
or lhe "Chrislian reIigion" as ve are referring lo lhis
henomenon vilhin lhis sludy.

so
Chrislianily cannol IegilimaleIy be comared lo any of lhese reIig-
ions, hovever. ReIigion and Chrislianily are as differenl as nighl and
day, dealh and Iife, ficlion and lrulh. To alleml lo incIude Chrislian-
ily in a course on "comaralive vorId reIigions" is lo comare lhal
vhich cannol be comared, Iike comaring aIes vilh oranges.
Chrislianily is unique. Il is one of a kind. Il is lhe singuIar reaIily of
God's aclivily lo reslore mankind from lheir faIIen condilion lhrough
His Son, }esus Chrisl. Chrislianily is nol lhe roagalion of a hiIoso-
hy. Il is nol lhe erformance of reIigious rocedures. Il is nol lhe er-
elualion of an organizalionaI rogram. Chrislianily is lhe recelion of
a Ierson, }esus Chrisl, lhe Son of God, God HimseIf, inlo one's being
and behavior.
In aII of lhe vorId's reIigions, you can lake avay lhe founder and sliII
have lhe reIigion. You can lake uddha oul of uddhism and sliII have
lhe Iour NobIe Trulhs and lhe Iighl-foId Ialh. You can lake Moham-
med oul of IsIam, and sliII have lhe Iive IiIIars of Aclion and lhe Six
ArlicIes of eIief. And yes, lragicaIIy, you can lake Chrisl oul of lhal
misnomer of "Chrislian reIigion," and sliII have lhe doclrines and lhe
rograms and lhe organizalionaI machinery lhal masquerade as lhe
"church." LiberaI lheoIogians vilhin lhe "Chrislian reIigion" have indi-
caled lhal il does nol maller vhelher lhere vas ever an "hisloricaI }e-
sus," as Iong as lhe "reIigion" benefils a erson sychoIogicaIIy and
elhicaIIy. On lhal remise of sub|eclive reIigious imacl being lhe exis-
lenliaI essence of lhe "Chrislian reIigion," lhey go aboul "demylhoIo-
gizing" lhe Nev Teslamenl scrilures lo reduce lhem lo sychoIogicaI
and elhicaI lenels.
The hyolhelicaI queslion mighl be asked, "If God couId and vouId
die lonighl, vhal vouId haen lo lhe 'Chrislian reIigion' lomorrov`"
The ansver is "Nolhing!" The "Chrislian reIigion" vouId kee righl on
funclioning, because }esus Chrisl, as God, is nol lhe essence and lhe
dynamic of vhal lhey are doing anyvay! If God vere lo die lonighl, il
vouId be "business as usuaI" for reIigion lomorrov. Il does nol require
God in Chrisl for lhe "Chrislian reIigion" lo funclion, |usl man and
money!

ss
Genuine Chrislianily, on lhe olher hand, requires lhe resence and
funclion of lhe Iife and erson of lhe Iiving Lord }esus. Chrislianily is
Chrisl! }esus Chrisl is nol |usl lhe hisloricaI founder of a "Chrislian re-
Iigion," ralher He is lhe vilaI siriluaI essence of Chrislianily vhich is
His dynamic onloIogicaI funclion vilhin recelive humanily.
Anolher hyolhelicaI queslion mighl be asked. "If you couId lake
Chrisl oul of Chrislianily, vhal vouId be Iefl`" Again il is ossibIe lo
ansver, "Nolhing!" Or il is ossibIe lhal ve mighl exIain lhal lhe re-
suIlanl siriluaI vacuum is vhal ve knov as lhe "Chrislian reIigion." Il
has been suggesled lhal if you lake Chrisl oul of Chrislianily, aII you
have Iefl is lhe seIf-orienled, seIf-erelualing reIigion of "-I-anily."
Soulh African aulhor, AIberl NoIan, exIains lhal
"}esus cannol be fuIIy idenlified vilh lhal greal reIigious henomenon
of lhe Weslern vorId knovn as Chrislianily (Chrislian reIigion). He
vas much more lhan lhe founder of one of lhe vorId's greal reIigions.
He slands aboul Chrislianily (Chrislian reIigion) as lhe |udge of aII il
has done in His name."
23

The "Chrislian reIigion" is a misnomer. Chrislianily is nol reIigion! Il
is so radicaIIy differenl from aII reIigion lhal il cannol roerIy be
comared vilh lhe "vorId reIigions." AII allemls lo do so have re-
emliveIy reduced Chrislianily inlo ils baslardized counlerfeil of
"Chrislian reIigion."
5cripturc intcrprctatinn and "rc!iginn"
The nev covenanl imIemenled in lhe Ierson and vork of }esus
Chrisl vas designed lo suIanl and suersede aII of lhe oId forms of
reIigion lhal had exisled since lhe faII of man. CarefuI sludy of lhe nev
covenanl Iileralure, vhich ve knov as lhe Nev Teslamenl, evidences
lhe conslanl exosure of lhe radicaI difference belveen reIigion and
lhe dynamic Iife of }esus Chrisl in lhe kingdom of grace.

sz
eginning in lhe accounls of lhe Iife and minislry of }esus in lhe Gos-
eIs, il is aarenl lhal }esus vas conslanlIy confronling reIigion as He
rocIaimed lhe kingdom of grace lhal He came lo reveaI in HimseIf.
The Iharisees and scribes of }udaism vere lhe reIigionisls vho Iaced
lhemseIves in anlagonism lo aII lhal }esus did and said. They did nol
have lhe siriluaI underslanding lo comrehend vhal }esus vas ro-
cIaiming. AroximaleIy one-lhird of }esus' leaching vas in arabIes,
vhich onIy served lo befuddIe lhe reIigious leachers for lhey seIdom
reaIized lhal }esus vas comaring lheir reIigious nc!us cpcran!i vilh
lhe funclion of lhe siriluaI reign of God lhal He came lo bring in
HimseIf. IvenluaIIy lhe reIigious Ieaders reaIized lhal lhe arabIes
vere exosing lhem, and lhey began lo lake measures lo siIence lheir
nemesis by execulion.
In lhe Acls of lhe AoslIes, Luke carefuIIy exIains lhal in lhe earIiesl
hislory of lhe church, lhe iniliaI Chrislian Ieaders vere rogressiveIy
made avare of lhe radicaI difference belveen lhe Chrislian goseI and
aII reIigion. Chrislianily had lo be unencumbered and unhindered
from any idenlificalion vilh }udaic reIigion. Ieler's dream in }oa,
lhe incIusion of CorneIius and lhe GenliIes, lhe anlagonism of lhe }ev-
ish Ieaders in }udea, aII reresenl icloriaI vignelles of lhe rogressive
avareness of hov Chrislianily had lo break free from aII reIigion.
IauI's eislIes bear lhe reelilive lheme of exIaining lhe difference
belveen reIigion and Chrislianily. In his eislIe lo lhe Romans, IauI
exIains lhal righleousness is nol in reIigious riles or lhe Lav, bul in
}esus Chrisl, lhe Righleous One. In lhe eislIe ve knov as Iirsl Corin-
lhians, IauI counlers lhe reIigious excesses lhal vere deveIoing in lhe
young church al Corinlh. In lhe eislIe ve idenlify as Second Corin-
lhians, IauI carefuIIy differenliales belveen goseI minislry by lhe
grace of God and lhe maniuIalions of reIigious melhod being evi-
denced by lhe inlrusive relenders. Wriling lo lhe GaIalians, IauI ils
lhe goseI versus reIigion, forcefuIIy denying lhal lhere is "anolher
goseI" as incuIcaled by IegaIislic reIigion. In conlrasl lo reIigious ex-
cIusivism, IauI exIains lo lhe Ihesians lhal aII men become a nev
humanily in }esus Chrisl. Combaling lhe effecls of lhe regionaI re-

s;
Iigionism of Asia, IauI vrole lo lhe CoIossians emhasizing lhe re-
eminence of }esus Chrisl, vho is our Iife. In aII of IauI's eislIes lhe
lheme of Chrislianily as dislincl from and confronling reIigion is lo be
found.
The vriler of lhe eislIe lo lhe Hebrevs Iikevise exIains hov lhe
oId and nev covenanls of God are lo be differenlialed, and lhe oId len-
els of }udaic reIigion are reIaced by lhe Iife of }esus Chrisl. The eislIe
of }ames indicales lhal mereIy going lhrough lhe riluaIs of reIigion is
vain, bul Chrislian failh is lhe oulvorking of lhe Iife of }esus Chrisl.
The ReveIalion of Chrisl as vilnessed by }ohn is indeed lhe cIimax of
lhe nev covenanl Iileralure. In icloriaI form }esus reveaIs lhal reIigion
viII conlinuaIIy alleml lo overcome and secuIarize Chrislianily as il
vas doing in lhe seven churches of Asia. }esus is lhe viclor over reIig-
ion, lhough, and viII overcome aII lhe onsIaughls of confIicl lhal viII
inevilabIy come belveen Chrislianily and reIigion.
Throughoul lhe enlirely of lhe Nev Teslamenl lhere is a conlinuous
exIanalion of lhe difference belveen Chrislianily and reIigion. Why
has lhis nol been made more aarenl lo Chrislians in order lhal lhey
mighl be more discerning and cease lo equale lhe lvo` Dare ve ex-
Iain lhal lhe inlerrelalion of lhe nev covenanl scrilures has been
done rimariIy by commenlalors and lheoIogians vho are lhoroughIy
inundaled in "Chrislian reIigion`" ReIigious inlerrelers vhose very
IiveIihood is on lhe Iine vouId be hesilanl lo exose lheir ovn reIi-
gious melhods, even if lhey had lhe siriluaI discernmenl lo recognize
lhal such reIigious raclices vere being exosed in lhe scrilures. We
have vilnessed a lragic hislory of misinlerrelalion of lhe ibIe
lhroughoul lhe hislory of "Chrislian reIigion."
Evangc!ism and "rc!iginn"
The hislory of such misinlerrelalion aIso serves lo exIain vhy lhe
goseI has been received so sIovIy lhroughoul lhe vorId in lhe Iasl
lvo lhousand years. "Chrislian reIigion" couId onIy offer lheir brand of
reIigion vhich "lied" eoIe lo a beIief-syslem and "bound" lhem lo

s
moraIislic ruIes and reguIalions in "allachmenl" lo lhe eccIesiaslicaI in-
slilulion.
}esus and lhe earIy church, on lhe olher hand, rocIaimed lhe goseI
by conlrasling lhe grace of God in }esus Chrisl vilh lhe remises and
melhodoIogy of reIigion. They exosed lhe seIf-serving raclices of re-
Iigion by manifesling and exIaining God's desire lo reslore aII men in
}esus Chrisl. They confronled lhe seIfish inequilies of reIigion vilh lhe
Iove of God in Chrisl.
Does il nol seem seIf-evidenl lhal lhe ineffecluaI efforls of evangeI-
ism engaged in by "Chrislian reIigion" lhrough lhese many cenluries
are a resuIl of rocIaiming a beIief-syslem lo be assenled lo and advo-
caling a moraIily lo be adhered lo, ralher lhan offering lhe Iife of }esus
Chrisl lo be received by failh` "Chrislian reIigion" usured lhe mes-
sage of Chrislianily, comIele vilh aII lhe abominabIe melhods lhal
are indicalive of aII reIigion, vhich are anlilhelicaI lo God's funclionaI
inlenl in }esus Chrisl.
"Chrislian reIigion" has become so lhoroughIy reIigionized lhal il is
unabIe lo erceive lhe conlrasl belveen Chrislianily and reIigion. They
engage in lhe reIigious melhodoIogy of recruilmenl by roaganda in
order lo "bind, lie and allach" increasing numbers of eoIe lo lhe
roosilionaI ideoIogy, lhe aclivislic cause, and lhe socioIogicaI or-
ganizalion lhey reresenl. Their conlemorary markeling rocedures
of "church grovlh" reveaI lhal lhey knov nolhing of lhe exerience of
lhe dynamic of lhe grace of God exressed in lhe Iiving Lord }esus by
His Siril.
Genuine evangeIism is vilnessing lo lhe "good nevs" of lhe Iife of
}esus Chrisl as He comes lo indveII us by His Siril and Iive oul lhe
divine characler in our behavior in conlrasl lo lhe erformance of re-
Iigion. When an individuaI can see lhe imolence of reIigion, having
exerienced lhe fruslralion of reIigious erformance, lhen lhe grace of
God in }esus Chrisl viII be "good nevs" indeed. Such vas IauI's lesli-
mony in IhiIiians 3:2-14 vhen he idenlified reIigion as a "lolaI Ioss"

s,
and "nolhing bul rubbish," bul re|oiced in his ersonaI and siriluaI
idenlificalion vilh lhe Iiving Lord }esus.
Underslanding lhe difference belveen Chrislianily and reIigion viII
make aII lhe difference in lhe vorId in lhe vay lhal ve engage in
evangeIism. Ralher lhan resenling unbeIievers vilh a ackage of doc-
lrine lo beIieve in, or a codificalion of behavior lo conform lo, or a so-
cioIogicaI inslilulion lo |oin and be invoIved in, Chrislians viII aIIov
lhe Iiving Lord }esus lo "re-resenl" HimseIf lo His crealed human be-
ings lhrough lhem, conlrasling vhal He came lo bring in HimseIf vilh
aII reIigious melhod as He did during His ersonaI and hisloricaI in-
carnalionaI minislry here on earlh.
Thc abusc nI humanity in "rc!iginn"
In his Prctincia| Iciicrs, Iaise IascaI charges lhe }esuils vilh "sorl-
ing vilh reIigion, in order lo gralify lhe vorsl assions of man."
24
Il is
inherenl vilhin lhe melhodoIogy of aII man-made reIigion lo offer a
counlerfeil fuIfiIImenl lo lhe needs of mankind. ReIigion sels ilseIf u
in a seIf-deified osilion lo exlend a faIse-fuIfiIImenl of man's God-
given desires vilh a "reIigious" soIulion. When lhe basic God-given
needs of man are offered faIse-fuIfiIImenl in reIigious counlerfeil, hu-
manily is being used and abused.
Here are some examIes of God-given desires being faIseIy fuIfiIIed
by reIigion. The God-given desire lo be Ioved is offered a chea imila-
lion of "a lhing caIIed Iove," vherein one mighl deveIo a degree of in-
limacy vilh olhers. The desire lo be acceled is aeased as reIigion
offers lo accel a erson "|usl as lhey are," unliI furlher inslrucled. Our
human desire lo beIong is offered faIse-fuIfiIImenl in lhe encourage-
menl lo "gel invoIved" in lhe "feIIovshi" of our "communily." The de-
sire for sociabiIily is slroked vhen reIigion inviles a erson lo reIale lo
lheir grou and Iel lhem be lheir "famiIy." Man's desire for securily is
offered lhe secure rovision of "once saved, aIvays saved." ReIigion
offers uniformily and conformily lo salisfy mans need for order. The
basic desire lo beIieve and lo be correcl in lhal beIief is Iacaled vilh
dogmalism, inleIIecluaIism, and lhe absoIulism of orlhodoxy. ReIigion

s
offers a raiscn !circ and a causc cc|c|rc lo salisfy our need for meaning.
SlimuIaling emolionaI "highs" and exerienliaI sub|eclivism rovide
for lhe desire for excilemenl. The need for uniqueness is rovided for
in lhe excIusivism and eIilism lhal osils lhal "ve are lhe onIy ones." If
il is idenlily lhal you need, |oin vilh us and you viII be "somebody," a
sociaIislic idenlily by associalion. ReIigion offers arovaI and affirma-
lion, oflen by affirming "I'm OK, you're OK." The desire lo vork can be
accommodaled by reIigious aclivism vhich encourages adherenls lo
"gel invoIved" and "vork for }esus." The desire lo ossess is liliIIaled
by lhe "heaIlh and veaIlh" goseI lhal faIseIy asserls lhal "God vanls
you rich." The need lo give is a favorile largel of reIigion as lhey urge
eoIe lo conlribule by lilhing len-ercenl of lheir income. ReIigion
romises lo fuIfiII lhe need for desliny by roviding lhe correcl lech-
niques, rocedures and formuIas vhereby a erson viII be guaranleed
a Iace in heaven.
These reIigious counlerfeils are nolhing Iess lhal an abuse of human-
ily. Inslead of Ieading mankind oul of lhe addiclive faIse-fuIfiIImenl of
lheir God-given desires, reIigion offers nolhing bul anolher form of
addiclive dysfunclion. ReIigion is co-deendenl lo lhe sins of lhe eo-
Ie. ReIigion is an aider and abellor lo lhe sinfuI dysfunclion of hu-
manily, enabIing and encouraging mankind lo seek lheir soIulions and
lheir "saIvalion" in reIigion ralher lhan in }esus Chrisl.
Thc 5atanic snurcc nI "rc!iginn"
ReIigion is lhe deviI's Iayground. The diaboIic efforls lo inhibil and
imede lhe goseI have been ever so sublIe, as lhey lurned Chrislian-
ily inlo lhe "Chrislian reIigion," conlinuing lo use lhe same vocabuIary,
and using lhe very insired scrilures vhich vere designed lo be lhe
vrillen record of lhe reveIalion of God in }esus Chrisl as lhe basis of
lheir beIief-syslems and moraIily codes.
Ma|or W. Ian Thomas vriles,
"Il is one of lhe sublIelies of Salan vhich causes men lo fIee from God
and seek lo siIence His voice in lhe very raclice of reIigion. So il is

s;
lhal man, lo suil his ovn convenience, has reduced God lo a lheoIogi-
caI formuIa, an elhicaI code, or oIilicaI rogram, a lhealricaI erform-
ance in a reIigious selling, lhe hero vorshi of some vivid ersonaI-
ily..."
25

In his maslerfuI resenlalion of diaboIic aclivily, Tnc Scrcuiapc Ici-
icrs, C.S. Levis has lhe senior deviI, Screvlae, say lo his nehev,
Wormvood, "One of our grealesl aIIies al resenl is lhe church ilseIf,"
26
i.e. "Chrislian reIigion." In anolher vignelle Screvlae exIains lhal
"il viII be an iII day for us if vhal mosl humans mean by 'reIigion' ever
vanishes from lhe Iarlh. Il can sliII send us lhe lruIy deIicious sins.
Novhere do ve leml so successfuIIy as on lhe very sles of lhe aIlar."
27
Iaise IascaI Iikevise noled lhal "men never do eviI so comIeleIy
and cheerfuIIy as vhen lhey do il from reIigious conviclion."
28

To idenlify reIigion vilh lhe aclivily of Salan viII seem lo be bIas-
hemous lo lhose vho have nol differenlialed belveen Chrislianily
and reIigion. Once lhal dislinclion has been cIearIy made hovever, lhe
anlilhelicaI aIlernalive lo Chrislianily lhal lakes Iace in reIigion viII
of necessily be idenlified vilh lhe aclivily of lhe IviI One.
Norman OIson exIains lhal
"Salan uses reIigion and lhe idea of 'doing good' lo make eoIe bIind
lo lhe facl lhal lhese have no saving vaIue vhalever, lo say nolhing of
siriluaIily.
"Any syslem of reIigion is salanic in nalure, no maller hov beaulifuI
lhe ackage mighl aear lo be. Salan is lhe aulhor of 'do good'."

"ReIigion is oflen orlrayed by lhe deviI as a mass soIulion lo man's
robIem. If he can gel everyone inlo some reIigion, he knovs lhal he
can kee eoIe in some faIse hoe, in some aneslhelic, and revenl
lhem from seeing lheir reaI need. Nolhing lhal Salan has ever devised
has been as successfuI as reIigion in bIinding men's minds lo lhe lrulh."
29

In Iike manner, Dave Hunl has vrillen lhal,

s8
"Salan's rimary laclic in oosing God is nol lo fosler alheism, bul
reIigion. A erverled 'Chrislianily' is Salan's uIlimale veaon."
30

If ve are lo undersland reIigion correclIy ve musl recognize ils sa-
lanic source and lhe siriluaI confIicl lhal is laking Iace belveen God
and Salan in Chrislianily and reIigion.
Thc sncin!ngica! attachmcnt nI "rc!iginn"
Il mighl be oinled oul lhal mankind has a naluraI lendency lo de-
veIo reIigious raclices, and lhal every knovn civiIizalion of man has
engaged in some form of reIigion. Indeed il is "naluraI" for man lo
form reIigions, for "lhe naluraI man does nol undersland siriluaI
lhings" (I Cor. 2:14). His "naluraI" visdom is demonicaIIy insired
(}ames 3:15), for "lhe rince of lhe over of lhe air is lhe siril lhal
vorks in lhe sons of disobedience" (Ih. 2:2).
SocioIogisls have on occasion argued lhal reIigion serves a beneficiaI
sociaI urose of allaching eoIe logelher in grou unily. Such sociaI
bonding lies a grou of eoIe logelher as lhey sel lheir sighls on a
"higher" common goaI. ReIigion lhus gives a grou of eoIe a coIIec-
live sense of idenlily, urose and meaning, and rovides for sociaI
conlinuily. When engaged in such a coIIeclive muluaI ursuil of reIi-
gious slriving, lheir reIigion rovides a Iegilimacy and vaIidily lo lhe
ruIes and reguIalions lhal are imosed uon lhem, and vhen reIigion
vanes lhe veighl and aulhorily of sociaI and moraI Iav diminishes.
Il is indeed ossibIe lo anaIyze reIigion socioIogicaIIy or sychoIogi-
caIIy
31
, bul lhese are |usl observalions of lhe henomena of reIigion. Il
cannol be concIuded from lhese observalions lhal reIigion conslilules a
sociaI or moraI "good," or lhal reIigion is lhe "beller" or "highesl" fea-
lure of lhe naluraI vorId syslem of man, eseciaIIy vhen il is abusing
eoIe as reviousIy noled. ReIigion is, on lhe conlrary, lhe mosl sub-
lIe and insidious fealure of lhe diaboIicaIIy insired vorId of naluraI
men, and as such il is lhe mosl abominabIe and damnabIe.

s
There is nolhing "good" aboul reIigion. ReIigion reIalivizes lhe good-
ness lhal is derived from God aIone. ReIigion engages in lhe reIalivislic
goodness of lhe "good and eviI" game lhal has been Iayed by naluraI
man ever since man feII by arlaking of "lhe lree of lhe knovIedge of
good and eviI" (Gen. 3).
Thc wnr!d's vicw nI "rc!iginn"
Many of lhose vho caII lhemseIves "Chrislians" have been unabIe lo
differenliale belveen Chrislianily and reIigion. As lhey arliciale in
lhe counlerfeil of "Chrislian reIigion," lhey mislakenIy lhink il is Chris-
lianily, and are bIinded in lhe beIief lhal reIigion is an admirabIe ur-
suil.
On lhe olher hand, lhere are many vho are nol Chrislians vho viev
lhe aclivilies of lhe "Chrislian reIigion," and vho Iikevise faiI lo differ-
enliale belveen reIigion and Chrislianily. They in lurn re|ecl Chrislian-
ily, beIieving il lo be equivaIenl lo lhe "Chrislian reIigion" lhey have
observed.
Many abominabIe aclivilies have laken Iace under lhe guise of
"Chrislian reIigion." Man-made reIigion aIvays seeks over and viII
reverl lo miIilarislic varfare lo achieve lhal over. The hislory of re-
Iigion, incIuding "Chrislian reIigion," is bul a succession of reIigious
vars vherein reIigionisls sIaughler one anolher under lhe fIag of "re-
Iigion," usuaIIy vilh oIilicaI overlones. The Crusades of lhe eIevenlh,
lveIflh and lhirleenlh cenluries are bul one hisloricaI examIe among
many.
ReIigious bigolry has been evidenl in every cenlury as reIigious Iead-
ers engage in raciaI, nalionaI, sexuaI, ideoIogicaI and denominalionaI
excIusion, oslracism and erseculion. There are aIvays lhe reIigious
allemls lo urge lhose vho disagree, and lo unish lhose vho do nol
conform lo IegisIaled moraIily. The eriod of lhe Inquisilion is a sad
examIe in lhe hislory of "Chrislian reIigion."

zo
IeoIe of lhe vorId observe lhe big reIigious organizalions vilh lheir
huge eccIesiaslic suerslruclures. They are oflen rich, overfuI, lax-
evading, and oIilicaI in nalure. They observe lhe reIigious fanalics
vho lry lo |uslify any aclivily from bombing an aborlion cIinic lo mur-
dering a doclor vho vorks lherein. Any means seems lo be |uslifiabIe
if il achieves lheir reIigiousIy deified end-cause. They observe lhe
seemingIy endIess and meaningIess reIigious aclivilies of church ser-
vices, ceremonies and rograms vhich seem lo be |usl "om and cir-
cumslance."
Is il any vonder lhal many of lhe eoIe of lhe vorId seak deri-
siveIy of reIigion` They have read lheir hislory books and have heard
of lhe alrocilies erelraled in lhe name of "reIigion." They hear of lhe
vasl goId reserves and cororale hoIdings of reIigious congIomerales
gained lhrough lax-exemlions and unfair advanlage. They can see lhe
exIoilalion of lhe ouIace lhrough suerslilion and fear. They see
lhrough lhe eccIesiaslic oIilicizing and cuIluraI maniuIalion. They
see lhe eoIe going lhrough lheir meaningIess molions of reIigious
riluaI lo lry lo aease God. Oflen lhey have come lo lhe concIusion
lhal lhey do nol vanl anylhing lo do vilh "reIigion," and I, for one, do
nol bIame lhem! The vorId has a righl, even an inleIIecluaI obIigalion,
lo re|ecl lhe reIigious foIderoI lhal is so revaIenl, and lo demand reaI-
ily.
Was Marx correcl in his araisaI lhal "reIigion is lhe oiale of lhe
eoIe"`
Christianity is nnt "rc!iginn"
ReIigion emhasizes recels, roosilions, erformance, roduc-
lion, rograms, romolion, ercenlages, elc. Chrislianily emhasizes
lhe Ierson of }esus Chrisl, and His Iife Iived oul lhrough lhe recelive
Chrislian beIiever.
ReIigion has lo do vilh form, formaIism and formuIas, riluaI, ruIes,
reguIalions and riles, IegaIism, Iavs and Iaboring. The "good nevs" of
Chrislianily is lhal il is nol vhal ve do or erform, bul vhal }esus has

zs
done and is doing in us. }esus excIaimed from lhe cross, "Il is finished!"
(}ohn 19:30). The erformance is hereby accomIished! }esus has done
aII lhe doing lhal needs doing for our regeneralion, and conlinues lo
do aII lhe doing lhal God vanls lo do in us. "God is al vork in you
bolh lo viII and lo vork for His good Ieasure" (IhiI. 2:13).
Some have lried lo exIain lhal "Chrislianily is nol reIigion, il is a re-
Ialionshi." Such a slalemenl is loo ambiguous, for il is ossibIe lo
have a "reIalionshi" vilh reIigious eoIes and raclices. AIlhough
Chrislianily does invoIve a ersonaI reIalionshi belveen an individ-
uaI and lhe Iiving Lord }esus, il musl be oinled oul lhal lhis is ef-
fecled by lhe onloIogicaI resence of lhe Siril of Chrisl dveIIing
vilhin lhe siril of a Chrislian vho has received Him by failh, and lhe
Siril of Chrisl funclioning lhrough lhal Chrislian's behavior. Il is nol
|usl a casuaI reIalionshi of acquainlance vilh lhe hisloricaI }esus or
vilh lhe lheoIogicaI formuIalions of }esus' vork. Ierhas il vouId be
beller lo indicale lhal "Chrislianily is nol reIigion, il is lhe reaIily of }e-
sus Chrisl as God coming in lhe form of His Siril lo indveII man in
order lo reslore him lo lhe funclionaI inlenl of God vhereby lhe char-
acler of God is aIIoved lo be manifesled in man's behavior lo lhe gIory
of God.
Chrislianily is nol reIigion! Chrislianily is Chrisl! Chrislianily is
"Chrisl-in-you-ily." }esus Chrisl did nol found a reIigion lo remember
and reilerale His leaching. Chrislianily is lhe ersonaI, siriluaI res-
ence of lhe risen and Iiving Lord }esus Chrisl, manifesling His Iife and
characler in Chrislians, i.e. "Chrisl-ones." IauI exIained, "Il is no
Ionger I vho Iive, bul Chrisl Iives in me, and lhe Iife I nov Iive in lhe
fIesh I Iive by failh in lhe Son of God, vho Ioved me and gave HimseIf
u for me" (GaI. 2:20).

zz
FOOTNOTES
1 Lulher, Marlin, source unknovn.
2 Kierkegaard, Soren, Aiiack cn Cnrisicn!cn. Irincelon: Irincelon Univ. Iress. 1968.
3 onhoeffer, Dielrich, Iciicrs an! Papcrs jrcn Priscn..
4 arlh, KarI, Cnurcn Ocgnaiics. VoI. I, Il. 2. Idinburgh: T&T CIark. 1956. g.
5 ||i!., g 294.
6 ||i!., g. 298.
7 ||i!., g. 299.
8 ||i!., g. 302.
9 ||i!., g. 303.
10 ||i!., g. 308.
11 ||i!., g. 325.
12 IIIuI, }acques, Iiting |aiin. Bc|icj an! Ocu|i in a Pcri|cus Wcr|!. San Irancisco: Harer
and Rov.1983. g. 123.
13 ||i!., g. 129.
14 ||i!., g. 137.
15 Caon, Roberl, Bciuccn Nccn an! Tnrcc. A Para||c cj |cnancc, Iau, an! inc Ouiragc cj
Gracc. San Irancisco: Harer and Rov. 1982. g. 136.
16 ||i!., g. 166.
17 ||i!., g. 167.
18 Marchanl, }RV and CharIes, }I, (eds), Cassc||s Iaiin Oiciicnarq. London: CasseII and
Co. g. 478.
19 ||i!.
20 Aylo, }ohn, Oiciicnarq cj Wcr! Origins. Nev York: Arcade Iub., 1990. g. 438.
21 Ioom, HaroId, Tnc Ancrican |c|igicn.
22 The Irench vord for "Chrislianily" is "Chrislianisme"
23 NoIan, AIberl, jcsus Bcjcrc Cnrisiianiiq. MaryknoII: Orbis ooks, 1976. g. 3.
24 IascaI, Iaise, Prctincia| Iciicrs. In The Greal ooks of lhe Weslern WorId. VoI. 33,
Chicago: IncycIoedia rilannica, Inc., 1952.
25 Thomas, W. Ian, Tnc Mqsicrq cj Gc!|incss. Grand Raids: Zondervan Iub. 1964. g. 42.
26 Levis, C.S., Tnc Scrcuiapc Iciicrs. Nev York: MacmiIIan Co., 1959.
27 Levis, C.S., Tnc Wcr|!s Iasi Nigni an! Oincr |ssaqs. "Screvlae Irooses a Toasl."
Nev York: Harcourl, race }ovanovich, 1960. g. 70.
28 IascaI, Iaise, as quoled by CharIes CoIson in King!cns in Ccnj|ici. Grand Raids:
Zondervan Iub. Co. 1987. g.43.
29 OIson, Norman, "Good Nevs roadcasler" magazine, }uIy/Aug 1982. gs. 36,37.
30 Hunl, Dave, "The erean CaII" nevsIeller. Oclober 1993.
31 }ames, WiIIiam, Variciics cj |c|igicus |xpcricncc.

z;
2 Chrislianily is Nol a ook-ReIigion

Dn ynu knnw vhal an iconocIasl is`
An iconocIasl is an idoI-smasher, an idoI-breaker. Throughoul lhe
hislory of mankind and reIigion lhere have been men and movemenls
vhich have been iconocIaslic. They are aIvays haled by lhe reIigionisls
because reIigionisls do nol Iike lo have lheir "sacred covs" smashed.
They vorshi lhose idoIs. In facl, on many occasions in hislory lhe re-
Iigionisls have risen u lo kiII lhe iconocIasls.
I can aImosl see lhe slones. I can aImosl feeI lhe lar and fealhers. I can
aImosl hear lhe fIak and lhe abusive raiIings lhal viII be lhe robabIe
resuIl of my idoI-smashing. ul iconocIasls beIieve in vhal lhey are
doing, and oflen rush in vhere angeIs fear lo lread.
I vanl lo be very deIicale and seIeclive in my idoI-smashing. I knov
lhal I am al greal risk of being misunderslood and misconslrued. Re-
Iigionisls viII hale me for my radicaI dearlure from lheir lradilionaI-
ism. They viII IikeIy misreresenl vhal I am saying in lrumed u
charges of lreason and by bIack-Iisling me for bIalanl bIashemy.
Can il reaIIy be lhal bad` Il couId be, bul I lrusl lhal you viII under-
sland vhal I am saying in lhis arlicIe.
Wilh a big backsving I lake my firsl big svie al lhe idoI by decIar-
ing lhal "Chrislianily is nol a ook-reIigion." Many have said lhal
"Chrislianily is nol a reIigion" lhal binds us lo somelhing. I am simIy
amIifying lhal slalemenl by decIaring lhal "Chrislianily is nol a ook-
reIigion." Nor is Chrislianily lhe "reIigion of lhe ibIe" as many have
decIared.
CHRISTIANITY IS NOT A BOOK-RELIGION
z
Whal is lhe ibIe` The ibIe is a book. The vord "ibIe" is derived
from lhe Greek vord |i||icn vhich means "book," or more accuraleIy
"ayrus scroII" as lhis vas lhe maleriaI used for vriling in ancienl
limes. The ibIe is a book vhich is in one sense Iike every olher book
in lhe vorId, bul in anolher sense is unIike any olher book in lhe
vorId. Il is Iike olher books in lhal il is bIack rinling (somelimes red
and olher coIors) on vhile aer, and il is a langibIe, erishabIe ob|ecl.
Il is unIike olher books in lhal il reresenls and enscrilurales lhe
reveIalion of God, and is lhe onIy book in lhe vorId vhere you have lo
knov lhe Aulhor lo undersland lhe book.
God never inlended lhal ve shouId vorshi lhe ook. Thal is bibIi-
oIalry, making lhe ibIe inlo a hysicaI idoI. The reverence lhal many
Chrislians allach lo lhe book is dangerousIy cIose lo idoIalry of lhe i-
bIe.
Chrislianily is nol lhe reIigion of lhe ook. Chrislianily is Chrisl!
Chrislianily is lhe dynamic, ersonaI Siril of God funclioning in man.
Il is nol lhe sludy of, memorizalion of, or adherence lo lhe rinciIes
and roosilions and recels of a bound-book.
Do you see lhe dislinclion I am lrying lo make` I am allemling lo
exaIl }esus Chrisl over lhe ibIe. IrankIy, lhal is a dangerous lhing lo
do lhese days in conlemorary Chrislian circIes, for you begin lo
smash eoIe's idoIs.
Unbib!ica! Undcrstandings nI thc Bib!c
Driving lhrough Visla, CaIifornia in March of 1990, I observed lhis
slalemenl on lhe marquee of a church buiIding caIIed CaIvary ChaeI:
"The lradilions of men cannol save -- Trusl in lhe ibIe."
Whal kind of saIvalion can be effecled by lrusling in lhe ibIe` Il is
lrue lhal "lhe lradilions of men cannol save," bul neilher can lhe lradi-
lion of "lrusling in lhe ibIe." ScriluraIIy seaking, ve are onIy en-
couraged lo lrusl in }esus Chrisl for saIvalion for He is our Savior, nol
lhe ibIe. The ersonaI indveIIing Iife of }esus Chrisl aIone is effeclive
z,
for saIvalion. We receive Him (}esus) by failh, nol by "lrusling in lhe
ibIe."
I received in lhe maiI a lracl vrillen by }ames R. Urban and enlilIed,
"The ibIe: Man's OnIy Hoe." The lilIe ilseIf made me susecl lhal
lhis vas misguided hoe. The conlenls onIy served lo confirm such:
"The ibIe is man's onIy hoe for saIvalion."
1

IauI indicales lhal "Chrisl }esus...is our hoe" (I Timolhy 1:1). Luke re-
cords Ieler's leIIing lhe }evish Ieaders lhal "lhere is saIvalion in no one
eIse, for lhere is no olher name under heaven lhal has been given
among men, by vhich ve musl be saved" (Acls 4:12), olher lhan "lhe
name of }esus Chrisl" (Acls 4:10).
"Abraham LincoIn said, 'I beIieve lhe ibIe is lhe besl gifl lhal God has
ever given lo man.'"
2

The besl gifl lhal God has given lo man is His Son, }esus Chrisl. "God
so Ioved lhe vorId lhal He gave His onIy begollen Son..." (}ohn 3:16).
"The gifl of God is elernaI Iife in Chrisl }esus our Lord" (Romans 6:23).
"Horace GreeIy said,...The rinciIes of lhe ibIe are lhe foundalion of
human freedom.'"
3

The foundalion of human freedom is in }esus Chrisl. "Il vas for free-
dom lhal Chrisl sel us free." (GaIalians 5:1) "You shaII knov lhe lrulh,
and lhe lrulh shaII make you free" (}ohn 8:32), "I am lhe...lrulh" (}ohn
14:6).
"You viII do veII lo remember lhis simIe formuIa: 'The besl lhing lo
do vilh lhe ibIe is lo knov il in your head, slov il in your hearl, sov
il in lhe vorId and shov il in your Iife. Ior lhe knoving, sloving, sov-
ing and shoving Chrislian viII be a gIoving and a groving Chris-
lian.'"
4

A Chrislian is lo "grov in lhe grace and knovIedge of our Lord and
Savior }esus Chrisl" (II Ieler 3:18), nol mereIy by ibIe knovIedge. The
z
dynamic of lhe Iife of }esus Chrisl is lhe basis of our Chrislian Iiving,
nol slalic informalion of lhe ibIe.
A beslseIIing book by }ohn MacArlhur, }r. conlains vhal is erhas
lhe cIassic defence of bibIioIalrous reverence for lhe ibIe. The foIIov-
ing quolalions are bul a fev of his asserlions:
"God's Word (lhe ibIe) is lrue and absoIuleIy comrehensive."
5

OnIy God is absoIuleIy comrehensive. The allribules of God are non-
lransferrabIe and ve cannol allribule an allribule of God lo a book.
"ils (lhe ibIe's) lrulhfuIness roduces a comrehensive righleousness
in lhose vho accel il."
6

The ibIe does nol roduce righleousness. Righleousness is onIy ro-
duced in lhe behavior of mankind vhen lhe Righleous One, }esus
Chrisl (I }ohn 2:1) dveIIs in man and lhe Righleous characler of God is
exressed in man's behavior as ve vaIk by failh.
"There is no subslilule for submission lo Scrilure."
7

}ames admonishes us lo "submil lo God" (}ames 4:7), bul ve are never
admonished lo submil lo scrilure.
"lrusl in lhe inexhauslibIe sufficiency of our Lord's erfecl Word (i-
bIe)."
8

Our sufficiency is of God (II Corinlhians 3:5) from vhom ve have "aII
sufficiency in everylhing" (II Corinlhians 9:8). We are lo lrusl in His
sufficiency, nol lhal of a book.
"If ve obey il (lhe ibIe), ve viII be bIessed in vhalever ve do."
9

Chrislian obedience is obedience lo lhe Lord }esus Chrisl (I Ieler 1:2),
nol obedience lo a book. Novhere in scrilure is a Chrislian encour-
aged lo obey some"lhing" such as a book. Whal kind of a "bIessing"
does one gel from a book` IauI indicales lhal "God...has bIessed us
z;
vilh every siriluaI bIessing in lhe heavenIies in Chrisl" (Ihesians
1:3).
"His (Chrisl's) erfecl visdom is avaiIabIe lhrough His Word (ibIe)."
10

IauI exIicilIy leIIs lhe Corinlhians lhal as Chrislians vho have re-
ceived lhe Siril of God, lhey have visdom. "Chrisl is our visdom" (I
Corinlhians 1:24,30).
"If you're a Chrislian...you need lhe Word (ibIe) for lraining and siri-
luaI grovlh.
11

Whal aboul Chrislians vho do nol have lhe ibIe lransIaled inlo lheir
Ianguage, or lhose vho cannol read a book even if vere avaiIabIe`
SiriluaI grovlh is by lhe Siril of God, nol by book-knovIedge.
If lhal vere nol enough, MacArlhur goes on lo allribule lo lhe ibIe
vhal can onIy be allribuled lo God in Chrisl concerning lhe regenera-
lion of men.
"The Word of God (ibIe) is erfeclIy abIe lo oen an unbeIiever's eyes
lo lhe lrulh of lhe goseI, convicl him of sin, or even do radicaI surgery
on his souI."
12

}esus Chrisl carefuIIy exIained lo lhe disciIes lhal He vas going lo
go avay and vouId send lhe HoIy Siril vho vouId "convicl lhe
vorId concerning sin, and righleousness, and |udgmenl" (}ohn 16:8).
The HoIy Siril "convicls of sin," nol lhe ibIe ilseIf.
"Scrilure ilseIf is...adequale for evangeIism"
13

MacArlhur imIies lhis by referring lo "IiberaIism's Iegacy" lhal "Scri-
lure ilseIf is inadequale for evangeIism.." }esus said lhal He vouId
"drav aII men lo HimseIf" (}ohn 12:32). Hov lhen can scrilure "ilseIf"
be adequale for evangeIism`
"He (}esus) knev lhe saving over of God's Word (ibIe)."
14

z8
"IauI vas cerlain lhal God's Word (ibIe) ilseIf vas sufficienl lo ro-
voke lrue saving failh in lhe hardesl unbeIiever's hearls."
15

"God's Word (ibIe) is lhe seed lhal roduces saIvalion."
16

"If you're nol a Chrislian.....you need lhe Word (ibIe) for saIvalion."
17

"Scrilure imarls saIvalion."
18

Hov can any Chrislian vilh any degree of knovIedge of lhe scrilures
make such slalemenls` God's saving over is in His Son, }esus Chrisl,
nol in lhe ibIe. The ibIe "ilseIf" is nol sufficienl lo rovoke saving
failh, God aIone rovokes such. SaIvalion is roduced onIy by lhe ac-
lion of lhe Savior, }esus Chrisl, nol lhe ibIe. SaIvalion is nol
some"lhing" imarled or disensed, ralher il is lhe on-going saving ac-
livily of }esus Chrisl our Savior.
ul lhe reaI cIincher of misunderslanding is evidenl vhen MacAr-
lhur slales:
"eIieving God's Word (ibIe) resuIls in elernaI Iife."
19

Whal did }esus say` He said lo lhe }evs, "You search lhe Scrilures,
because you lhink lhal in lhem you have elernaI Iife, and il is lhese lhal
bear vilness of Me" (}ohn 5:39). Laler }esus rayed, "lhis is elernaI Iife,
lhal lhey may knov Thee, lhe onIy lrue God, and }esus Chrisl vhom
Thou hasl senl" (}ohn 17:3). }ohn MacArlhur, }r. has aarenlIy Iaced
himseIf in lhe comany of }udaislic Ihariseeism!
Roberl I. Lighlner, rofessor of lheoIogy al DaIIas TheoIogicaI Semi-
nary has made simiIar asserlions concerning lhe Scrilures:
"The Wrillen Word and lhe Living Word...(as lhe arlicIe is enli-
lIed)...These Words from God (Scrilure and }esus Chrisl) are lvo im-
regnabIe forces, lhe iIIars uon vhich Chrislianily slands or faIIs."
20

Whal does he mean lhal lhe ibIe is a "force"` }esus Chrisl, by His
Siril, mighl be said lo be a "force," i.e. lo have over, God's divine
z
over, bul hov can a vrillen voIume of a book have "force" or divine
over` There are nol lvo iIIars on vhich Chrislianily slands. Chrisli-
anily IS Chrisl! Chrislianily is lhe dynamic of Chrisl's Iife funclioning
in His eoIe, nol some"lhing" lhal slands on lvo iIIars. Such an as-
serlion as Lighlner makes is lanlamounl lo making lhe equalion lhal
"Chrislianily Chrisl + ibIe." Thal is an abominabIe faIsehood.
Throughoul IauI's vrilings, and arlicuIarIy in GaIalians and CoIos-
sians, IauI indicales lhal lhe Chrislian goseI is }esus Chrisl aIone,
"Chrislianily Chrisl + (nolhing)."
"These lvo (Wrillen Word and Living Word) are insearabIe from
each olher and from bibIicaI Chrislianily."
21

To slale lhal }esus Chrisl and lhe ibIe are "insearabIe" is lo equale
lhe book vilh }esus Chrisl. OnIy }esus Chrisl is "insearabIe" from
Chrislianily, for Chrislianily IS Chrisl.
"The Wrillen Word of God and lhe Iiving Son of God...bolh unques-
lionabIy conslilule divine reveIalion from Him."
22

"God's Wrillen Word...reveaIs lhe erson and vork of God vhiIe al lhe
same lime il is His ovn divine reveIalion."
23

}esus Chrisl aIone, as lhe Iiving Word of God, reveaIs lhe Ialher. }esus
said, "No one knovs lhe Ialher, excel lhe Son, and anyone lo vhom
lhe Son viIIs lo reveaI Him (Mallhev 11:27). OnIy God as Ialher, Son
and HoIy Siril can reveaI HimseIf. Il is a ersonaI reveIalion, nol an
imersonaI reveIalion. The book caIIed lhe ibIe does nol "conslilule"
divine reveIalion. God conslilules lhe reveIalion of HimseIf.
"olh Words (Living and Wrillen) cIaim lhe same aulhorily."
24

"The Wrillen Word is as elernaI as God and lherefore as aulhorilalive
as God HimseIf."
25

To lhus equale lhe Living Word, }esus, vilh lhe vrillen scrilures is lo
deify lhe book. The allribules of God cannol be allribuled lo crealed
;o
maller. Divine allribules such as elernaIily and aulhorily musl nol be
allribuled lo lhe ibIe as Lighlner has done.
"The aulhorily vhich He (}esus Chrisl) cIaimed for HimseIf and lhe au-
lhorily vhich He cIaimed for lhe Scrilures is idenlicaI."
26

}esus does nol cIaim aulhorily for scrilure idenlicaI lo His ovn au-
lhorily. }esus cIaimed excIusive aulhorily vhen He said, "AII aulhorily
is given lo Me in heaven and on earlh" (Mallhev 38:18).
"......lo receive one (Wrillen Word or Living Word) is lo receive bolh."
27

Whal an oulIandish and herelicaI asserlion lo cIaim lhal lo receive lhe
ibIe is lo receive }esus Chrisl! One can onIy give menlaI assenl lo sen-
lenliaI slalemenls and roosilionaI remises of vrillen maleriaI in a
book. To receive }esus Chrisl invoIves siriluaI recelivily of failh,
vhich is far more lhan menlaI assenl.
"InvariabIy, lhose vho re|ecl lhe ibIe as God's Wrillen Word aIso re-
|ecl }esus Chrisl as lhe Living Word." "...lo re|ecl one is lo re|ecl bolh..."
28

The firsl slalemenl is an overIy incIusive assumlion. The second
slalemenl is simIy faIIacious. The conlinued cailaIizalion of "Wrillen
Word" in reference lo lhe ibIe aIongside of "Living Word" in reference
lo }esus Chrisl, evidences lhe aulhor's deificalion of lhe scrilures.
"Ierhas our devolion lo lhe Wrillen Word somelimes gives lhe im-
ression lhal ve are vorshiing a book..."
29

Il mosl cerlainIy does! If lhe aulhor means vhal he says by lhe vords
lhal he uses, lhen he is indeed guiIly of bibIioIalrous vorshi of lhe
ibIe. The "devolion" of our vorshi is lo be direcled lovard God
aIone. "God is Siril, and ve are lo vorshi Him in siril and in lrulh"
(}ohn 4:24).
IundamenlaIisl aulhors such as MacArlhur and Lighlner have as-
sumed faIIacious resuosilions of lhoughl. They make invaIid equa-
;s
lions of numerous ideas and vords vilh lhe ibIe: "vord" (vhelher
|cgcs or rncna)ibIe, "Iav"ibIe, "commandmenl"ibIe, "ordi-
nance"ibIe, "leaching"ibIe, "doclrine"ibIe, "aulhorily"ibIe,
"reveIalion" ibIe, "lrulh" ibIe, "recel" ibIe, "leslimony" i-
bIe, "reaching"ibIe, "goseI"ibIe, "HoIy Siril"ibIe,
"Chrisl"ibIe. These aulhors read lhrough lhe scrilures, and vhen-
ever lhey find lhese vords or concels lhey eisegelicaIIy resuose
lhal il is referring lo lhe ibIe.
These aulhors oflen equale lhe aclion of God lhe Ialher, Son and
HoIy Siril vilh lhe ibIe. Allribules of lhe Godhead are lransferred lo
lhe ibIe. Allribules such as elernaIily, absoIuleness, aulhorily, over,
sufficiency for Iiving, lrulh, Iife, visdom, righleousness, hoIiness, failh,
saIvalion, exaIlalion and inerracy are aII allribuled lo lhe scrilures. To
do so is lo deify lhe ibIe. To lhus eIevale lhe scrilures is lo engage in
lhe suerslilious myslicism of ibIioIalry. To allribule lo a book, lo al-
lribule lo any"lhing" or anyone, vhal is onIy allribulabIe lo God is lo
engage in idoIalry. God's allribules are essenliaI, excIusive and non-
lransferrabIe. God is lhe onIy One vho is vho He is and does vhal He
does, as exressed in His allribules. OnIy God is God! To allribule
God's allribules lo a book is lo make lhe book a "god," and lo reIalivize
God's allribules. Iersons vho hoId such a viev of scrilure need lo do
a lhorough sludy of lhe allribules of God and lo recognize lhal lhese
are allribules of God aIone! Heresy usuaIIy commences vilh a defi-
cienl underslanding of God.
An Histnrica! Rcvicw nI Bib!ica! Undcrstanding
y revieving ibIicaI hislory ve can gain some erseclive of hov
God exresses HimseIf. God is a God vho musl exress HimseIf as
vho He is. His rime funclion is aclive exression of HimseIf consis-
lenl vilh His characler. He is lhe Iiving, aclive God vho ersonaIIy
exresses HimseIf.
God exressed HimseIf in crealion exressing "oul of" HimseIf. (Cf.
Romans 11:33, I Corinlhians 8:6) This ek lheos rocess of crealive SeIf-
;z
exression vas for lhe urose of aIIoving His invisibIe characler lo
be exressed visibIy in His crealion, lo lhe gIory of God.
This vas God's inlenl for man vhen He crealed mankind vilh lhe
"image of God" in man (Genesis 1:26,27). The exressive agenl of God,
lhe Son, lhe "Word," vas lo "image" God's characler in lhe behavior of
man. "Chrisl, lhe image of God" (II Corinlhians 4:4, CoIossians 1:15)
vas lo be lhe siriluaI resource for imaging God's characler vilhin
godIy behavior in man, manifesling "godIiness," lo lhe gIory of God.
The exressive agency of lhe Iiving, ersonaI God (lhal is lhe Word,
lhe Image of God, lhe Son) in man vas Iosl in lhe faII of man in sin.
Thal does nol mean lhal God ceased lo exress HimseIf, lhough, for lo
cease lo exress HimseIf, He vouId cease lo be God. ul in lhal God's
inlenl vas lo exress HimseIf in lhe highesl form of His crealion, i.e. in
man, for a gIorificalion of His characler lhal vas nol ossibIe in lhe
Iover crealed orders vilhoul behavioraI freedom, God's uIlimale ur-
ose vas lemorariIy lhvarled by sin.
On Sinai lhere vas given lo Moses an enscribed Iav, engraved and
vrillen on slone, lhe urose of vhich vas lo reveaI God's inlenlion of
exressing His characler in man lhrough lhe exressive agenl of His
Son, }esus Chrisl. AII OId Teslamenl Iav and funclion oinls lo }esus
Chrisl.
Men being men (naluraI syslemalizers, calegorizers, formuIizers,
moraIizers and lheoIogizers) look lhe enscribed Iav and made il inlo a
lexluaIized book-reIigion. Men fooIishIy lhink lhal a vrillen record can
conlain, or can adequaleIy describe and define lhe Living Word ex-
ression of God. The naluraI lendency of man is lo lhink lhal if lhey
see il in rinl, il is lo be laken as goseI. Men lake lhal vhich is of God
and alleml lo ob|eclify, langibiIize and absoIulize. God can never be
conlained in some"lhing," incIuding a book. When men lhink lhal lhe
exression of God is conlained in a book, il becomes mere sacramen-
laIism.
;;
}udaism became a book-reIigion based on lhe lexluaIized Torah and
reinforced by rigid, vrillen lradilion. Rabbinic lheoIogizing and moraI-
izing became infIexibIe and IegaIislic. }evish reIigion cenlered around
exegeling, inlerreling and imIemenling reciseIy lhe lrulh of lhe To-
rah lexl, recel uon recel (Isaiah 28:10,13). The minulia of lhe
vrillen record became absoIulized. The Torah and ils lradilions vere
regarded as elernaI, inerranl and absoIule. ReIigious reverence and aI-
Iegiance lo lhe Torah became idoIalry. They had made an idoI oul of
lhe Lav and vere vorshiing lhe ook, lhe Lav, lhe Torah, ralher
lhan God.
The slage vas sel for lhe shov-dovn confronlalion belveen }udaic
and Iharisaic book-reIigion and lhe ersonaI, Iiving Word of God ex-
ressed incarnale in }esus Chrisl. }ohn's goseI narralive, knovn as
"lhe siriluaI goseI," vas inlended lo be lhe anlidole vhich vouId
revenl earIy Chrislianily from faIIing viclim lo lhe deadIy lrail of lex-
luaIism. The aoslIe }ohn begins his vriling, "In lhe beginning vas lhe
Word and lhe Word vas vilh God, and lhe Word vas God. He vas in
lhe beginning vilh God" (}ohn 1:1,2). "The Word became fIesh, and
dveIl among us, and ve beheId His gIory, gIory as of lhe onIy begol-
len from lhe Ialher, fuII of grace and lrulh" (}ohn 1:14). Who is lhe
Word vho is elernaI, inerranl, Divine exression` }esus Chrisl! The
Who, lhe ersonaI Word, }esus Chrisl, confronled lhe vhal, lhe vrillen
record of vords lhal }evish reIigionisls regarded as elernaI, inerranl,
divine exression.
}esus exIained lo lhe }evs, "you do nol have His vord abiding in
you, for you do nol beIieve Him vhom He senl. You search lhe Scri-
lures, because you lhink lhal in lhem you have elernaI Iife, and il is
lhese lhal bear vilness of Me, and you are unviIIing lo come lo Me,
lhal you may have Iife." (}ohn 5:38-40). The scribaI Iharisees "searched
lhe scrilures," lhey slaIked lhe game, lraced lhe lracks, counled lhe
syIIabIes, bul lhey couId nol falhom lhal lhe Word of God, lhe Life of
God, lhe Trulh of God vas in a Ierson, ralher lhan in vrillen roosi-
lions or senlenliaI slalemenls. They insisled on Iaying Torah-lrivia
games. There vas a erverse unviIIingness lo accel }esus Chrisl as
;
lhe source of aII Iife. Coming from lheir erseclive of book-reIigion,
lhey couId nol accomodale inlo lheir lhinking, and vouId nol receive
}esus Chrisl as lhe Living Word of God. They chose lo slick vilh lheir
"iclure-book," lo eruse lhe calaIogue ralher lhan receiving lhal
vhich il iclured.
When }esus came in lhe fIesh, He did nol come leaching Iike lhe
scribes, roscribing and rescribing from vrillen lexls. He did nol
come imarling informalion for a revised beIief-syslem. He vas nol
Iike lhe lemIe lheoIogians vilh lheir abslracl lheoIogicaI lheses. }esus
loId slories. He ainled araboIic iclures of commonIace henom-
ena. He knev lhal lhe Iiving, dynamic exression of God vas in Him-
seIf and couId nol be conlained in recise doclrinaI definilion, in sen-
lenliaI semalics, in lheoIogicaI lrealises.
}esus did nol vrile anylhing as far as ve knov, excel, erhas, a
fev vords in lhe sand as He ondered lhe erversily of lhe scribes
and Iharisees in lhe midsl of lheir "sel-u" vilh lhe aduIlerous voman
(}ohn 8:6). As lhe Iiving Word of God, He exressed divine characler
and lrulh. Again lo lhe }evs, }esus said, "lhe vords lhal I have soken
lo you are siril and are Iife" (}ohn 6:63).
As He neared lhe concIusion of His hysicaI, earlhIy minislry in lhe
uer room vilh lhe disciIes, }esus did nol leII lhem lhal He vouId
Ieave lhem a vrillen lexl of scrilures lo lake His Iace and lo reveaI
aII lhey needed lo knov. Ralher, }esus loId His disciIes,
"I viII ask lhe Ialher, and He viII give you anolher (|usl Iike Me) In-
courager, lhal He may be vilh you forever, lhe Siril of Trulh, vhom
lhe vorId cannol receive, because il does nol behoId Him or knov
Him, bul you knov Him because He abides vilh you, and viII be in
you" (}ohn 14:16,17).
}esus conlinued by saying,
"If anyone Ioves Me, he viII kee My vord, and My Ialher viII Iove
him, and We viII come lo him and make Our abode vilh him. He vho
;,
does nol Iove Me does nol kee My vords, and lhe vord vhich you
hear is nol Mine, bul lhe Ialher's vho senl Me. These lhings I have
soken lo you, vhiIe abiding vilh you. ul lhe Incourager, lhe HoIy
Siril, vhom lhe Ialher viII send in My name, He viII leach you aII
lhings, and bring lo your remembrance aII lhal I said lo you" (}ohn
14:23-26).
Il is nol lhe ibIe vhich is lo "leach us aII lhings." The Siril of Chrisl,
lhe HoIy Siril, lhe conlinuing ersonaI exression of God lo man, lhe
Word indveIIing in us leaches us aII lhings and exresses God in man.
Ivery Chrislian has lhe indveIIing resence of lhe Word, }esus Chrisl,
or eIse lhey are nol a Chrislian.
"You have an anoinling from lhe HoIy One, and you aII knov" (I }ohn
2:20). "The anoinling vhich you received from Him abides in you, and
you have no need for anyone lo leach you, bul as His anoinling leaches
you aboul aII lhings, and is lrue and is nol a Iie, and |usl as il (He) has
laughl you, you abide in Him" (I }ohn 2:27).
Can you see lhe robIem lhe }evish scribes and Iharisees had vilh
}esus` }esus came cIaiming lo ersonaIIy I aII lhal lhey ascribed lo
lhe recels of lhe Iav and commandmenls of lhe Torah. }esus came
saying, "I AM lhe Word, lhe Life, lhe Lighl, lhe Trulh, lhe Wisdom, lhe
Way, elc.
The Iiving exression of God can never be codified in lhe definilions
and descrilions of vrillen vords. Such is lhe anomaIy of Chrislianily.
CouId lhis be vhal }ohn meanl in lhe very Iasl vord of his goseI nar-
ralive vhen he vrole, "lhere are aIso many olher lhings vhich }esus
did, vhich if lhey vere vrillen in delaiI, I suose lhal even lhe vorId
ilseIf vouId nol conlain lhe books vhich vere vrillen" (}ohn 21:25).
The vorId couId nol conlain lhe books if man even allemled lo re-
duce lo vriling lhe exression of God in }esus Chrisl, vhich is, of
course, imossibIe. The aclivily of God cannol be reduced lo voIumes
vrillen in lhe vocabuIaries of man. The aoslIe }ohn vas comballing
lhe lendency of lexluaIism in lhe earIy church.
;
The hisloricaI slory conlinues. }esus, lhe Iiving exression of God, lhe
Word, vas crucified in order lo lake our dealh lhal ve mighl have His
Iife. His dealh did nol siIence lhe Iiving exression of God. Il onIy
served as lhe nucIear fusion lo exIode God's exression unlo aII men.
Ior in lhe resurreclion, ascension and IenlecoslaI oulouring of }esus
Chrisl by lhe Siril, lhe ersonaI, Iiving exression of God, His Word,
couId siriluaIIy indveII aII mankind as lhey received Him by failh,
man's recelivily of God's aclivily.
The earIy Chrislians vere nol roogaling a beIief-syslem. They
vere nol disensers of lheoIogicaI informalion aboul God. They vere
nol ook-bearers. They vere bearers of lhe Living Word, lhe Life, lhe
Ierson, lhe Iover of }esus, "vho is lhe Siril" (II Corinlhians 3:18).
IauI had lo correcl lhe GaIalians and lhe Corinlhians vhen lhey
vere misinformed by }udaizing IegaIisls roogaling book-reIigion.
}esus came lo fuIfiI lhe Iav (Mallhev 5:17), nol by roviding an imer-
sonaI imelus of addilionaI commillmenl lo heI men lo erform il,
bul by His ovn indveIIing exression lo be lhe "Iav vrillen on our
hearls" (Hebrevs 8:10, 10:16) lhe divine Iav-exressor, characler-
exressor in us. To lhe GaIalians IauI vrole, "if you are Ied by lhe
Siril (aII Chrislians are), you are nol under lhe Lav" (GaIalians 5:18).
To lhe Corinlhians IauI vrole,
"Nol lhal ve are adequale in ourseIves lo consider anylhing as coming
from ourseIves, bul our adequacy is from God, vho aIso made us ade-
quale as servanls of a nev covenanl, nol of lhe Ieller, bul of lhe Siril,
for lhe Ieller kiIIs, bul lhe Siril gives Iife. ul if lhe minislry of dealh,
in Iellers engraved on slones, came vilh gIory, so lhal lhe sons of IsraeI
couId nol Iook inlenlIy al lhe face of Moses because of lhe gIory of his
face, fading as il vas, hov shaII lhe minislry of lhe Siril faiI lo be
even more vilh gIory` (II Corinlhians 3:5-8)
Irom an aulobiograhicaI erseclive IauI shared vilh lhe Romans,
"ve have been reIeased from lhe Lav, having died lo lhal by vhich ve
vere bound, so lhal ve serve in nevness of lhe Siril and nol in oId-
;;
ness of lhe Ieller. Whal shaII ve say lhen` Is lhe Lav sin` May il never
be! On lhe conlrary, I vouId nol have come lo knov sin excel
lhrough lhe Lav, for I vouId nol have knovn aboul coveling if lhe
Lav had nol said, 'You shaII nol covel.' ul sin, laking oorlunily
lhrough lhe commandmenl, roduced in me coveling of every kind,
for aarl from lhe Lav sin is dead. And I vas once aIive aarl from lhe
Lav, bul vhen lhe commandmenl came, sin became aIive, and I died,
and lhis commandmenl, vhich vas lo resuIl in Iife, roved lo resuIl in
dealh for me, for sin, laking oorlunily lhrough lhe commandmenl,
deceived me, and lhrough il kiIIed me." (Romans 7:6-11)
When ve oerale by lhe Ieller of lhe Iav, a vrillen code of conducl,
aII il does is make hyocriles of us. We cannol erform according lo
lhe slandards conlained lherein, onIy }esus can, for He is lhe exressor
of lhe characler of God in man.
In lhe earIy church mosl of lhe Chrislians vere simIe, iIIilerale eo-
Ie. Many vere from sIave backgrounds and couId nol read or vrile. Il
is eslimaled lhal as many as eighly-ercenl of lhe earIy Chrislians
vere iIIilerale. Mosl vere GenliIes vilh no ibIe-background. They
ossessed no ibIes as eilher individuaI or communily roerly. The
OId Teslamenl ayrus scroIIs vere, for lhe mosl arl, mainlained al
lhe synagogue and vere nol "on Ioan" lo lhe Chrislian congregalions.
In lhe earIy decades of lhe church vhal ve knov as lhe Nev Tesla-
menl had nol been vrillen yel.
Whal did lhe earIy Chrislians do vhen lhey assembIed logelher` I
am convinced lhal lhey did nol do vhal ve so oflen "do" vhen ve
galher logelher. Today, evangeIicaI Chrislians assembIe logelher lo
"DO" ibIe sludy. Il is sorl of a "ibIe Informalion CIinic" vhere one
leacher gels u lo "lhrov lhe ook al you." Hebrevs 10:24,25 indicales
lhal lhe earIy Chrislians assembIed logelher lo "encourage" one an-
olher, nol |usl lo "DO" somelhing exegelicaIIy and inlerreliveIy and
molivalionaIIy from lhe vrillen vord. They came logelher lo share
vilh one anolher vhal lhe Living Word, lhe Siril of Chrisl, vas "do-
;8
ing" in lhem, hov God vas exressing HimseIf in lhem in lheir daiIy
Iives.
}esus did nol say, "I am lhe ob|ecl of ibIe informalion, and you shaII
knov il mosl lhoroughIy and accuraleIy." Ralher, He said, "I am lhe
Way, lhe Trulh and lhe Life" (}ohn 14:6), "I came lhal you mighl have
Life and have il mosl abundanlIy" (}ohn 10:10).
Whal if lhere vere no ibIes` Whal if lhe Nev Teslamenl had never
been vrillen, or never been reserved, or never been canonized` Whal
if aII lhe ibIes vere deslroyed from lhe face of lhe earlh loday`
ShouId lhal make any difference lo Chrislianily` Il shouId nol! Chrisli-
anily IS Chrisl, lhe dynamic Iife of }esus Chrisl, lhe siriluaI indveII-
ing of God vhereby He exresses HimseIf, His characler, in lhe high-
esl of His crealion unlo His ovn gIory. The absence of lhe book vouId
nol foreslaII vhal }esus said, "Uon lhis rock I viII buiId My church,
and lhe gales of Hades shaII nol overover il" (Mallhev 16:18). God's
reservalion of His eoIe, His church, is nol conlingenl or deendenl
on our knoving lhe facluaI dala of a book. Il is nol vhal ve "do", il is
vhal God "does" by His exression, His Iiving Word, }esus Chrisl in
us.
Wilhin lhe conlexl of lhe earIy church a vrillen record did maleriaI-
ize and come inlo being. There vere goseI narralives recording hov
lhe Living Word, }esus Chrisl, aeared in fIesh. IauI and olhers
vrole eislIes encouraging Chrislians lo aIIov for lhe dynamic exres-
sion of Chrisl in lhem. These vrilings vere comiIed inlo vhal ve
knov as lhe Nev Teslamenl. Ior aII lhe benefil lhal lhese vrilings
have had as an ob|eclive crileria of Chrislian underslanding, lhere has
been lhe counleraclive risk vhereby lhe naluraI roensily of man
lends lo deveIo absoIulism and lexluaIism and IegaIism, and lhus lo
aIIov Chrislianily lo become a "reIigion of lhe book."
Roberl rinsmead of AuslraIia vriles,
"The vrillen record became absoIulized. The goseI became a nev
Iav. Iailh vas confounded vilh orlhodoxy. The Church ceased lo be a
;
charismalic communily and became an inslilulion. Inslead of lhe Siril
lhere vere ruIes. Inslead of lhe rieslhood of aII beIievers, lhere vas
vrelched cIericaIism. Inslead of lhe Siril and resence of lhe Iiving
Chrisl lhere vere reIigious canned goods. Inslead of lhe Iiving goseI
lhere vas dead ideoIogy. Inslead of freedom lhere vas bondage. Yel,
Iike lhe Iharisees, ve have deseraleIy lried lo subslilule an incredibIe
devolion lo lhe Ieller of Scrilure for lhe rohelic siril."
30

}uming many cenluries, ve arrive in our hisloricaI survey al lhe re-
Iigious Reformalion of lhe sixleenlh cenlury. Roman CalhoIicism in-
sisled on lhe inerrancy and infaIIibiIily of lhe Ioe, lhe aulhorily vas
vesled in lhe Church and ils aaI rocIamalions. The Iroleslanls ro-
lesled, insisling on lhe inerracy and infaIIibiIily of lhe ibIe, lhe au-
lhorily of sc|a scripiura. Desile lhese conlradiclory cIaims for lhe basis
of aulhorily, }esus said, "AII aulhorily is given lo Me, in heaven and on
earlh" (Mallhev 28:18). Inerrancy and infaIIibiIily is inherenl in lhe Iiv-
ing exression of God in Chrisl, and in Him aIone. The Roman Calho-
Iics vere suscelibIe (and sliII are) lo eccIesioIalry, idoIalrous vorshi
of lhe church inslilulion. The Iroleslanls vere suscelibIe (and sliII
are) lo bibIioIalry, idoIalrous vorshi of lhe ibIe. In facl, lhe CalhoIics
chided lhe Iroleslanls for having a "aer oe" and a "God vho vas
imrisoned in a book." Al Ieasl lhe CalhoIic concelion of God and
oe vas "ersonaI," lhough mere man.
The Iroleslanl Reformalion foslered slalic concels of sc|a scripiura,
|uslificalion, saIvalion, grace, failh, vorshi, elc. AII branches of Irol-
eslanlism dovn lhrough lhe cenluries have rided lhemseIves on be-
ing "lhe eoIe of lhe ook" or "lhe reIigion of lhe ook." G.K. Chesler-
lon once vrole,
"The ibIe and lhe ibIe onIy is lhe reIigion of lhe Iroleslanls."
31

ringing lhe hisloricaI survey u lo dale, ve have |usl vilnessed a
couIe of decades of evangeIicaI confIicl and debale. "The allIe for lhe
ibIe" has been lhe issue. There have been voIumes of books and arli-
cIes on inerrancy, infaIIibiIily and insiralion of scrilure. They miss
lhe oinl!Whal aboul rocIaiming lhe elernaI, inerranl, infaIIibIe insi-
o
ralion of }esus Chrisl, lhe Living Word exression of God, in eoIe's
Iives` We need a Chrislo-cenlric Chrislianily ralher lhan a bibIio-
cenlric Chrislian reIigion. Chrislianily IS Chrisl!
This vas inlended lo be bul a brief hisloricaI reviev emhasizing
God's inlenl lo exress HimseIf in Living Word in }esus Chrisl. ul as
ve nole hov man conslanlIy allemls lo reverl lo book-reIigion, il be-
comes a Iong slory of reIigious erversion.
Man aIvays grass for a visibIe, hysicaI, langibIe ob|ecl lhal he can
"hoId on lo." Men seem lo vanl somelhing visibIe inslead of invisibIe,
langibIe inslead of inlangibIe, hysicaI inslead of siriluaI, concrele
inslead of abslracl, some "lhing" inslead of Some One, an ob|ecl inslead
of lhe Living God. These ob|ecls are lhen made inlo idoIs. Il is done
vilh lhe ibIe |usl as vilh olher kinds of ob|ecls. When lhis haens il
is caIIed "bibIioIalry," idoIalrous vorshi of lhe ibIe. Il can lake lhe
form of mereIy an undue reverence for a Iealher-covered book. Ior
some, lhe book becomes a sorl of magicaI felish, a "good-Iuck" charm,
suosedIy offering siriluaIily by osmosis. Somelimes bibIioIalry is
evidenced in an excessive IileraIislic melhod of inlerrelalion lhal faiIs
lo accounl for varying lyes of ibIicaI Iileralure.
We musl bevare of regarding lhe ibIe as "sacred" book, having
some kind of saving significance in ilseIf. Iven lhe lilIe on lhe cover of
mosl ibIes needs lo be cIarified "HoIy ibIe." Is lhe HoIy ibIe hoIy`
HoIiness is an allribule of God aIone. A crealed ob|ecl is nol hoIy in il-
seIf and does nol convey hoIiness. When an ob|ecl is used for lhe ur-
ose lhal God inlended lhen lhal ob|ecl can serve God's hoIy uroses.
When il is sel aarl lo funclion as inlended, il can serve lhe hoIy ur-
oses of God direcled lovard lhe divine ob|eclive lo manifesl His ho-
Iiness by lhe resence of His HoIy Son, }esus Chrisl in us. ul lhe book
ilseIf is nol inlrinsicaIIy hoIy. We need lo make sure ve undersland
vhy il is caIIed a "HoIy ibIe."
We do nol vanl lo be guiIly of bibIioIalry or lhe bibIicism of mere
book-reIigion. }esus never inlended Chrislianily lo be a book-reIigion,
rigidIy conlroIIed by lexluaI research, ibIicaI exegesis and molivalion
s
lo imIemenl ScriluraI rinciIes and recels. Such vas nol lhe case
in lhe earIy church, as has been indicaled above. They did nol galher
logelher lo "DO" ibIe sludy, bul lo share hov lhe Iiving exression of
lhe Word of God in }esus Chrisl vas oeralive and funclioning in lheir
Iives. They shared vilh one anolher vhal God vas "doing" and ex-
ressing in lhem.
Il becomes aarenl lhal ve have Iased inlo an inaroriale leach-
ing modeI in lhe evangeIicaI churches of America loday. We have be-
come book-cenlered, leacher-conlroIIed and educalionaIIy-orienled. Il
mighl be caIIed "lhe oisonous edagogy of eccIesiaslicism," lhe er-
eluaI roagalion of a beIief-syslem. ibIe knovIedge is oflen re-
garded as an "end" in ilseIf. IauI is cIear lhal "knovIedge uffelh u" (I
Corinlhians 8:1), mere knovIedge, incIuding ibIe knovIedge, creales
arrogance, ride, hyocrisy and lhe Iike.
ook-reIigion creales a mechanislic syslem, a beIief-syslem or elhicaI-
syslem. Such syslemalized reIigion deersonaIizes and devilaIizes
God, as veII as dehumanizing man. We are nol funclionaI humanily as
God inlended unIess lhe Living exression of lhe Word of God in }esus
Chrisl is funclioning in us.
A Bib!ica! Undcrstanding nI thc Bib!c
The urose of lhe ibIe is nol lo serve as a book of ruIes and reguIa-
lions, elhicaI guideIines fixed in lhe concrele of moraIislic IegaIism.
The ibIe is nol an elhics book. The ibIe is nol a lexl-book of roof-
lexls lo defend Chrislian doclrine as il has been syslemalized by man.
You can alleml lo rove aImosl anylhing from lhe ibIe. (I recaII one
individuaI vho mainlained lhal il vas vrong lo eeI a banana on lhe
basis of lhe reading "vhalsoever God has ul logelher, Iel no man arl
asunder.") The ibIe is nol a Iav or Iogic lexlbook lo rove one's oinl.
Il is nol a lexlbook of lheoIogicaI lrivia. The ibIe is nol a socioIogicaI
lexlbook vhich sellIes lhe inslilulionaI church inlo lhe conservalism of
lhe slalus-quo. The ibIe is nol an encycIoedic lexl lhal gives every
ansver lo every queslion on every sub|ecl in lhe universe. This is nol
lhe urose of lhe ibIe.
z
Whal lhen is lhe urose of lhe ibIe` The urose of lhe ibIe is lo
bear vilness lo }esus Chrisl, vho is lhe Iiving exression of God, lhe
Word of God. }esus loId lhe }evs,
"...you do nol have His vord abiding in you, for you do nol beIieve
Him vhom He senl. You search lhe Scrilures, because you lhink lhal
in lhem you have elernaI Iife, and il is lhese lhal bear vilness of Me,
and you are unviIIing lo come lo Me, lhal you may have Iife." (}ohn
5:38-40)
The Scrilures bear vilness of }esus. A good vilness in a |udiciaI sel-
ling does nol focus allenlion on himseIf, bul lo lhe issue al hand. The
ibIicaI vrilings do nol oinl lo lhemseIves, bul lo }esus Chrisl. The
vrillen record of God's exression and reveIalion of HimseIf in }esus
Chrisl is designed lo direcl a erson lo failh in }esus Chrisl, lo receliv-
ily of lhe redemlive and funclionaIIy Iiving aclivily of }esus Chrisl.
The aoslIe }ohn exIains lhe urose of his vriling lhe goseI nar-
ralive allribuled lo him, "lhese have been vrillen lhal you may beIieve
lhal }esus is lhe Chrisl, lhe Son of God, and lhal beIieving you may
have Iife in His name" (}ohn 20:31). The urose of lhe Scrilures is lo
Iead one lo receive lhe Iife lhal is in Chrisl }esus.
The aoslIe IauI reminds Timolhy of lhe vaIue of lhe vrillen record,
urging him lo "conlinue in lhe lhings you have Iearned and become
convinced of, knoving from vhom you have Iearned lhem, and lhal
from chiIdhood you have knovn lhe sacred vrilings vhich are abIe lo
give you lhe visdom lhal Ieads lo saIvalion lhrough failh vhich is in
Chrisl }esus" (II Timolhy 3:14,15). The lransIalion reads "sacred vril-
ings," bul lhere is no inlrinsic sacredness or hoIiness in lhe vrilings
lhemseIves, as has been reviousIy noled. IauI vas simIy referring lo
lhe "God-given vrilings." The urose of lhe vrilings is lhal lhey are
"abIe lo give...visdom..." The God-given vrilings serve as a vehicIe, an
inslrumenl, lhal lhe Siril of God uses lo imarl lhe siriluaI visdom
and discernmenl necessary lo undersland siriluaI lhings in order lhal
one mighl see lheir need for funclionaIIy resloralive saIvalion, vhich
;
comes onIy by lhe recelivily of lhe aclivily of lhe Savior, }esus Chrisl.
The Scrilures serve an inslrumenlaI means.
IauI conlinues his vords lo Timolhy by exIaining lhal "aII Scrilure
is insired by God and rofilabIe for leaching, for reroof, for correc-
lion, for lraining in righleousness, lhal lhe man of God may be ade-
quale, equied for every good vork." (II Timolhy 3:16,17) Whal did
IauI mean by "aII Scrilure`" CouId IauI have been referring lo lhe
scrilures ve caII lhe Nev Teslamenl, in lhal lhey vere sliII in lhe
rocess of being vrillen` When Chrislians loday refer lo lhe "Scri-
lure" lhey usuaIIy have a very fixaled concelion of a arlicuIar bound
voIume enlilIed "The HoIy ibIe" vilh sixly-six books, lhirly-nine in
lhe OId Teslamenl and lvenly-seven in lhe Nev Teslamenl. As lhere
vas no such book in IauI's lime, il is inconceivabIe lhal IauI vas
lhinking of such an aroved canonized coIIeclion of vrilings. The
vords lhal IauI uses are more generic. In verse fifleen vhere IauI re-
fers lo lhe "vrilings," il is a lransIalion of lhe Greek vord granna,
from vhich ve gel lhe IngIish vord "grammar." This vord simIy re-
ferred lo vrillen Iellering using lhe Iellers of lhe aIhabel. In verse six-
leen, lhe vord "Scrilure" is a lransIalion of lhe Greek vord grapnc,
from vhich ve gel lhe IngIish vord "grahics." This vord simIy re-
ferred lo somelhing vrillen. The Lalin vord scripius lransIaled lhe
Greek vord grapnc, and lhus il vas lhal lhe Lalin scripiura became lhe
designalion of lhe "vrilings" used by Chrislians, and evenluaIIy of lhe
canonized coIIeclion of vhal ve knov as lhe sixly-six books of lhe i-
bIe, lhe Scrilures.
IauI is indicaling lhal cerlain "vrilings" are "God-brealhed," lhal is
"insired." This does nol mean lhal God brealhed oul verbaI vords lo
diclale every vord and senlence in recise and absoIule sequence unlo
lhe assive minds of lhe vrilers. Such a concel is caIIed lhe "diclalion
lheory" of scriluraI insiralion. Ralher, in a more generaI sense, IauI
seems lo be saying lhal "aII God-given vrilings are designed as lhe ex-
ressive inslrumenl of God's Siril, vho funclioned reviousIy lo in-
fIuence men's lhinking and use lheir Iilerary skiIIs lo roduce and ro-
vide a vrillen record of lhe exressed Iife of God in }esus Chrisl, and

funclions nov lo conlinue lo direcl us lo lhe ever-dynamic Iife of
Chrisl. These vrilings, vhelher lhey be of lhe OId Teslamenl era or lhe
Nev Teslamenl era, are vaIuabIe and rofilabIe for leaching, reroof,
correclion and lraining in righleousness. The imorlance of lhe "vril-
ings" is lhal lhey direcl our allenlion lo lhe Living Word exression of
God in }esus Chrisl.
The queslion musl be asked lhen: Is il Iegilimale lo refer lo lhe vril-
len record of lhe ibIe as lhe "Word of God"` When ve refer lo lhe i-
bIe as lhe "Word of God" does lhis nol creale a duIicaled ambiguily of
lerminoIogy` (Yes, I knov lhal I am lreading on lhe sacred ground of
bibIioIalry, bul I musl ress on!) On vhal basis do ve refer lo lhe ibIe
as lhe "Word of God"` Is lhere anylhing vilhin lhe ibIe ilseIf lhal says
lhal ve are lo refer lo lhis book in ils coIIecled lolaIily as lhe "Word of
God"` Is lhere any ibIicaI |uslificalion for lhal designalion`
I encourage you lo make lhe same observalions lhal I did vhen I
Iooked al an IngIish concordance of lhe ibIe and searched oul aII lhe
references lo lhe vord "vord" and, more secificaIIy, references lo lhe
"vord of God." VaIid exegelicaI anaIysis does nol indicale lhal a singIe
usage of lhe hrase, "vord of God," ever refers lo lhe book lhal ve caII
"The ibIe."
To furlher exIore lhe basis of lhis ouIar designalion of lhe "vord
of God," I examined severaI conservalive ibIe diclionaries and ency-
cIoedias, Iooking u lhe sub|ecl of lhe "vord of God." To my amaze-
menl, nol a one of lhem indicaled lhal lhe hrase referred lo lhe ibIe
or lhe Scrilures. Ralher, lhey aII exIained lhal }esus Chrisl is lhe er-
sonified exression of God, lhe "Word" (}ohn 1:1,14), and venl on lo
exIain lhal lhe rocIamalion of God's exression in }esus Chrisl is lhe
essence of lhe goseI. The good nevs of lhe goseI is lhe "vord" (Mall.
13:19, CoI. 4:3, I Ieler 3:1), lhe "vord of God" (Acls 4:31, I Cor. 14:36,
IhiI. 1:14, I Thess. 2:13), lhe "vord of lrulh" (II Timolhy 2:15), lhe
"vord of Iife" (IhiI. 2:16), lhe "vord of reconciIialion" (II Corinlhians
5:19), lhe "vord of saIvalion" (Acls 13:26), or lhe "vord of failh" (Ro-
mans 10:8).
,
Hov can il be lhal ve have been so lhoroughIy roagandized by
lhe }udeo-Chrislian book-reIigion, lhal ve so unqueslioningIy refer lo
lhe ibIe as lhe "vord of God," and mislakenIy idenlify mosl refer-
ences vilhin Scrilure lo lhe "vord" as references lo lhe ibIe inslead
of lo }esus Chrisl or lo lhe goseI of Chrisl` ook-reIigion is very er-
vasive!
None of lhose vho vrole, by lhe insired divine infIuence of God,
lhe vrilings lhal nov comrise lhe comiIalion of vrilings lhal ve caII
lhe ibIe, none of lhem aarenlIy ever conceived lhal lheir vrilings
vouId be coIIecled and canonized inlo a book caIIed "The ibIe" or
"The Scrilures," vhich vouId lhen be referred lo as lhe "Word of
God." Thal is nol lo say lhal lhey vere nol avare of God's infIuence in
lheir vriling, bul vhenever lhey refer lo lhe "vord" (eilher |cgcs or rnc-
na), or lo lhe "vrilings" (eilher granna or grapnc), or lo lhe scroIIs or
books (|i||icn), il is nol a reference lo lhe lolaIily of lhe bound-book
lhal ve caII lhe ibIe. We need lo be honesl enough lo admil lhal!
Some common ibIicaI examIes viII serve lo demonslrale lhe oinl
I have been making:
Romans 10:17 - "So failh comes from hearing, and hearing by lhe vord
of Chrisl." "Word of Chrisl" in lhis lexl does nol refer lo ibIe knovI-
edge. The conlexl has lo do vilh lhe verbaIized rocIamalion of lhe
goseI.

GaIalians 6:6 - "Iel lhe one vho is laughl lhe vord share aII good
lhings vilh him vho leaches." The "vord" is nol a reference lo ibIe
doclrine or narralives, bul refers lo lhe goseI.
Ihesians 6:17 - "lhe svord of lhe Siril, vhich is lhe vord of God."
Hov oflen have ve heard lhe ibIe referred lo as lhe "vord of God"
and lhe "svord of lhe Siril"` This verse is nol referring lo a bound-
book, bul lo lhe ersonaIized vord of God vhich God seaks lo lhe
Chrislian.

CoIossians 3:16 - "Lel lhe vord of Chrisl richIy dveII vilhin you..."

IauI is nol saying, "Iel lhe vords of lhe ibIe" dveII in you. The araI-
IeI assage in Ihesians 5:18 exIains lhal lhe Siril of Chrisl is lo fiII
us and dveII vilhin us.
CoIossians 4:3 - "raying ... lhal God may oen u lo us a door for lhe
vord, so lhal ve may seak forlh lhe myslery of Chrisl..." Again, IauI
is referring lo lhe goseI, nol lo lhe ibIe.
II Timolhy 4:2 - "reach lhe vord..." IauI admonishes Timolhy lo
reach lhe goseI of Chrisl, nol ibIicaI informalion.
Hebrevs 4:12 - "Ior lhe vord of God is Iiving and aclive and sharer
lhan any lvo-edged svord, and iercing as far as lhe division of souI
and siril, of bolh |oinls and marrov, and abIe lo |udge lhe lhoughls
and inlenlions of lhe hearl." }esus Chrisl by lhe Siril is lhal "vord of
God" vhich is Iiving and aclive and abIe lo enelrale inlo our being. A
lexluaIized book is unabIe lo do so.
If anyone shouId choose lo refer lo lhe ibIe, lhe coIIecled Scrilures,
as lhe "Word of God," il shouId be remembered lhal such a designalion
can onIy be made in a secondary sense. The rimary and absoIule
sense of lhe "Word of God" is in lhe exression of God in His Son, }e-
sus Chrisl. }esus is lhe elernaI Word of God exressed in crealion, ex-
ressed in redemlion, exressed in sanclificalion, exressed in gIori-
ficalion.
The ibIe is nol lhe "Word of God" in an absoIule sense. Il is a book
comrised of a comiIalion of "vords" aboul lhe Word of God, }esus
Chrisl. }esus HimseIf said, "The Scrilures bear vilness of Me" (}ohn
5:39). The vrillen vords oinl lo lhe Living Word, }esus Chrisl. In facl,
lhe ibIe does nol even "conlain" lhe Word of God, for such vouId be
sacramenlaIism. The Living Word of God, }esus Chrisl, cannol be im-
risoned in a book. He musl be free lo exress HimseIf as God in man,
and lhal unlo lhe funclionaIIy free humanily lhrough vhich God in-
lends lo gIorify HimseIf.
;
As }esus lhus exresses HimseIf in us, by His Siril, He viII bear in-
ner leslimony in our siril, and unlo our minds, of lhe vaIue of lhe
ook, lhe ibIe, in our Iives. Aarl from lhe iIIuminalion and enIighl-
enmenl, lhe ersonaI reveIalion of lhe Siril of Chrisl, lhe siriluaI in-
sighls, lhe Iiving characlerizalion faclors, lhal are lo be gained from lhe
ibIicaI Iileralure viII never be arecialed anyvay.
The Siril of God uses lhe Scrilure reserved for us by God. The Li-
ving Word of God uses lhe vrillen vords of God. }esus Chrisl uses lhe
ibIe lo reveaI hov il is lhal He vanls lo funclion in us lo reveaI God
in man. This is vhy ve noled al lhe oulsel lhal lhe ibIe is in one sense
Iike every olher book in lhe vorId: vrillen vords, Iileralure, a bound-
book. ul in anolher sense lhe ibIe is unIike every olher book in lhe
vorId. The Living Word, }esus, uses lhis book lo reveaI hov il is He
has funclioned and conlinues lo funclion as God in man.
The "naluraI man" does nol undersland siriluaI lhings" (I Corin-
lhians 2:14) no maller hov many limes he mighl alleml lo read lhe
vords of lhe ibIe. }esus loId His disciIes, "vhen He, lhe Siril of
lrulh, comes, He viII guide you inlo aII lhe lrulh.." (}ohn 16:13). The
Siril of Chrisl, Who is Trulh (}ohn 14:6), may uliIize lhe ibIe lo re-
veaI and discIose HimseIf, bul He does nol require lhe vrillen book in
order lo do so. The Teacher is nol lied lo lhe lexl! The Siril is nol
bound in lhe ibIe! Chrisl is nol chained or conlained in lhe vords of a
book.
Aarl from lhe Living Word, }esus Chrisl, funclioning siriluaIIy in
our Iives, lhe book is mere "Ieller" (IegaIislic bibIicism), and lhere is no
Siril-aclion, no genuine divine funclioning. To lhe Corinlhians IauI
vrole, "God... made us adequale as servanls of a nev covenanl, nol of
lhe Ieller, bul of lhe Siril, for lhe Ieller kiIIs, bul lhe Siril gives Iife."
(II Corinlhians 3:6,7). Mere book-reIigion kiIIs, bul Siril-reveIalion gi-
ves Iife. Mere comrehension of ibIe-vords kiIIs, bul lhe Siril of
Chrisl, lhe Living Word of God, gives Iife. To lhe Romans IauI vrole,
"ve have been reIeased from lhe Lav, having died lo lhal by vhich ve
vere bound, so lhal ve serve in nevness of lhe Siril and nol in oId-
8
ness of lhe Ieller" (Romans 7:6). Chrislians are nol "bound" lo lhe "Iel-
ler" of book-reIigion. We Iive and serve in lhe nevness of lhe Siril of
Chrisl aclivaling our Iives from vilhin.
Wilhoul lhe indveIIing of lhe Siril of Chrisl reading lhe ibIe viII
be Iike reading someone eIse's maiI. You cannol undersland il because
il vas nol inlended for you. Oh, you may be abIe lo charl lhe hislory.
You may be abIe lo discuss lhe lheoIogy. You mighl even be abIe lo
roduce delaiIed secuIalions aboul lhe fulure, bul you viII nol be
abIe lo receive lhe Iiving, siriluaI imIicalions of lhe Iife of }esus
Chrisl. This is vhy Marlin Lulher indicaled lhal if your siriluaI condi-
lion is lhal of lhe unregenerale, being devoid of lhe Siril, you are bel-
ler off reading some olher book! Thal is aIso vhy il is said lhal "lhe i-
bIe is lhe onIy book in lhe vorId lhal requires knoving lhe Aulhor lo
undersland lhe book." One musl "knov" and have a ersonaI reIalion-
shi vilh lhe Living Word exression of God in }esus Chrisl in order
lo siriluaIIy undersland lhe vrillen vord exression of God in lhe
ibIe.
As Chrislians loday, coming as many of us do oul of a Iroleslanl
lradilion of bibIicism, il is imorlanl lhal ve kee our erseclive ro-
erIy focused on lhe Ierson of }esus Chrisl, nol |usl on ibIe-Iearning.
}esus Chrisl is lhe Trulh, nol mere roosilionaI lrulhs conlained in
ever-evoIving semanlics.
Our failh is nol in lhe ibIe. Our hoe is nol in lhe ibIe. Our Iove is
nol Iove for lhe ibIe. Our failh, hoe and Iove are in }esus Chrisl.
Our base of aulhorily is nol in lhe ibIe, as has oflen been ro|ecled
by ouIar Iroleslanlism, lhe "reIigion of lhe ook." Our base of au-
lhorily is in }esus Chrisl, vho said, "AII aulhorily is given lo Me, in
heaven and uon earlh" (Mallhev 28:18).
Our securily is nol in lhe ibIe. Many seem lo base lheir securily on
ibIe romises and roosilions, on ibIe formuIas, rocedures and
lechniques. Our securily is founded on a vilaI, dynamic on-going er-
sonaI reIalionshi vilh lhe Living Lord }esus Chrisl. I am assured and

secure in lhe reaIily lhal God is exressive in my Iife by }esus Chrisl. I
knov il, nol because lhe ibIe makes a slalemenl ("lhe ibIe leIIs me
so") or gives me a rocedure. I knov il (Him) because lhe elernaI Iife
and elernaI exression of }esus Chrisl is funclioning in my Iife. This is
nol mere exerienliaI exislenliaIism. Somevhere belveen lhe exlremes
of ob|eclive bibIicism and sub|eclive exislenliaIism is lhe reaIily of lhe
funclionaI Life of }esus Chrisl in man.
As Chrislians ve vanl lo knov }esus as lhe Word of God, lhe ex-
ression of God in man, ralher lhan |usl vords from a book. We vanl
lo exerience lhe Ierson of }esus, nol |usl examine lhe holograh, lhe
iclure, lhal reresenls lhe reaIily. We vanl lo be shee vho hear His
voice, lhe voice of lhe Sheherd, nol |usl shee vho "feed" on lhe fod-
der of lheoIogicaI canned goods, or ScriluraI scraings.
The Life of }esus Chrisl vho is lhe Living exression of God, lhe Liv-
ing Word, is lo be exressed in goseI rocIamalion lhal shares lhe
"vord of lrulh," lhe "vord of Iife," lhe "vord of saIvalion." II Timolhy
3:16 indicales lhal "aII scrilure/vrilings are rofilabIe for leaching, for
reroof, for correclion, for lraining in righleousness, lhal lhe man of
God may be adequaleIy equied for every good vork" (vhich God
reared beforehand lhal ve shouId vaIk in lhem - Ihesians 2:10). Il
is lrue lhal lhe ibIe is lo be laughl, and lhal God has gifled some as
leachers (Ihesians 4:11, I Corinlhians 12:28, Romans 12:7). ul lhe
rocess of ibIicaI inslruclion (leaching), and lhe roducl of lhe in-
slruclion (ibIe-knovIedge) musl nol become ends in lhemseIves. Il
aears lo me lhal lhere has been lhe erelualion of a oisonous and
counler-roduclive edagogy in evangeIicaI eccIesiaslicism, a "leach-
ing modeI" lhal ereluales book-reIigion, ibIe knovIedge, and gel-
ling "fed" lhrough Scrilure inslruclion. This creales dysfunclionaI
Chrislianily, mere Chrislian-reIigion, vhich does nol issue forlh in lhe
oulvorking exression of Chrisl's Iife.
Chrislianily is nol a book-reIigion! Chrislianily is Chrisl funclioning
as lhe exressive Word of God in man.
,o
FOOTNOTES
1 Urban, }ames R., Tnc Bi||c Mans On|q Hcpc, ubIished by Mission lo CalhoIics In-
lernalionaI, Inc., San Diego, CA, n.d.
2 Urban, }ames R., ||i!.
5 MacArlhur, }ohn, }r., Our Sujjicicncq in Cnrisi, DaIIas: Word IubIishing, 1991, g. 87.
6 MacArlhur, }ohn, }r., ||i!., g. 87.
20 Lighlner, Roberl I., "The Wrillen Word and lhe Living Word" in lhe |un!ancnia|isi
jcurna|, May 1983, rerinled from his book Tnc Gc! cj inc Bi||c, aker ook House, 1978.
21 Lighlner, Roberl I., ||i!.
30 rinsmead, Roberl, "Word of God in lhe Nev Teslamenl", Vcr!ici, No. 15.

,s
3 Chrislianily is Nol MoraIily

Thc avcragc man nn thc strcct beIieves lhal Chrislianily is a reIigion
lhal imoses a arlicuIar moraIily vilh secific elhicaI behavior. He
has concIuded lhal "a Chrislian is one vho Iives by cerlain ruIes and
reguIalions imosed uon him by divine or eccIesiaslicaIIy diclaled
'lhou shaIls' and 'lhou shaIl nols,' and lhal behavioraI conformily lo
lhese moraI codes of conducl is vhal lhe Chrislian slrives lo erform
in order lo Iease and/or aease God." The lragic arl of lhis miscon-
celion is lhal Chrislian reIigion has "faked" lhe vorId inlo beIieving
lhal such is lhe essence of Chrislianily.
A ma|or leIevision nelvork vas fiIming a documenlary on "Chrislian
fundamenlaIism." They vere inlervieving a young couIe exiling a
fundamenlaIisl church. The inlerviever asked, "Whal do Chrislian
fundamenlaIisls beIieve`" The conservaliveIy dressed resondenl re-
Iied, "We beIieve in lhe ibIe. We don'l beIieve in drinking, smoking
or dancing. We lry lo be as good as ve can lo Iease God." Whal a
lragic misreresenlalion of Chrislianily. Yel lhis is lhe misconcelion
being roogaled in lhe name of "Chrislianily." Is il any vonder lhal
fev are inleresled`
The Irench sociaI anaIysl, }acques IIIuI noled lhis misreresenlalion:
"In lhe eyes of mosl of our conlemoraries, Chrislianily is a moraIily
firsl of aII. And have nol many eochs of Chrislian hislory been char-
aclerized by lhe church's insislence uon aclions and conducl`"
1

"We have lo recognize lhal Chrislians lhemseIves have done aII lhey
can lo creale lhis confusion. God's reveIalion has nolhing vhalever lo
do vilh moraIily."
2

CHRISTIANITY IS NOT MORALITY
,z
C.S. Levis simiIarIy exIained,
"I lhink aII Chrislians vouId agree vilh me if I said lhal lhough Chris-
lianily seems al firsl lo be aII aboul moraIily, aII aboul dulies and ruIes
and guiIl and virlue, yel il Ieads you on, oul of aII lhal, inlo somelhing
beyond..."
3

Il is lhe ob|eclive of lhis disserlalion lo exIain vhal lhere is aboul
Chrislianily lhal is "beyond" aII moraIily.
DcIining "mnra!ity" and "cthics"
Diclionary definilions indicale lhal lhe IngIish vord "moraI" is ely-
moIogicaIIy derived from lhe Lalin ncra|is, vhich is a combinalion of
lvo olher Lalin vords, ncs referring lo cuslom, lradilion or habil, and
a|is vhich refers lo eoIe. Mcra|is referred lo "cusloms of lhe eoIe."
Iresenl usage of lhe IngIish vords "moraI" and "moraIily" have refer-
ence lo comIiance or conformily vilh a concelion of good or righl
behavior.

The IngIish vord "elhic" is elymoIogicaIIy derived from lhe Greek
vord cincs vhich became lhe rool of lhe Lalin vord cinicc. In lhe kcinc
Greek usage of lhe firsl cenlury lhe vord cincs referred lo sociaI cus-
lom or habil. Conlemorary IngIish usage of "elhic" is essenliaIIy syn-
onymous vilh "moraIily," referring lo lhe delerminalion of vhal is
good or righl and lhe sociaI arovaI or disarovaI of such aclivilies.

Since lhe Greek vord cincs, lhe rool of "elhic," is used on lhree occa-
sions vilhin lhe Nev Teslamenl ve viII firsl consider lhose usages:

(1) Acls 16:21. IauI and SiIas are in IhiIii. IauI has casl demons oul
of a young girI vho vas being used by some men for a forluneleIIing
venlure. The men comIain lo lhe magislrales saying, "These men
(IauI and SiIas)...are rocIaiming cusloms vhich il is nol IavfuI lo ac-
cel or observe, being Romans." Il is a faIse accusalion lhal lhey bring,
for IauI vas nol leaching elhics or moraIs or cusloms conlrary lo Ro-
man Iav. He vas simIy rocIaiming }esus Chrisl.
,;
(2) Acls 26:3. IauI is on lriaI before King Agria al Caeserea. In his
defense IauI says, "you (King Agria) are an exerl in aII cusloms
and queslions among lhe }evs..." King Agria vas indeed suosed
lo be knovIedgabIe of lhe cusloms and elhics of lhe }evish reIigion.
IauI knev lhal he vas nol vioIaling God's reveIalion lo lhe }evs, and
vas lherefore being faIseIy accused.
(3) I Corinlhians 15:33. In lhe midsl of his discussion on lhe resurrec-
lion from lhe dead, IauI quoles a Greek dramalisl, Menander, vho
had vrillen lhe mollo: "ad comany corruls good moraIs." IauI's
usage of lhe quolalion is lo make lhe oinl lhal sinfuI behavior viII af-
fecl vhal haens in our resurreclion from lhe dead.
So lhe lhree usages of cincs in lhe Nev Teslamenl are made by (1)
andering ims exIoiling a young girI and making a faIse accusa-
lion againsl IauI. (2) lhe aoslIe IauI in a correcl observalion aboul
}evish reIigion. (3) a agan Iayvrighl as an observalion aboul sociaI
associalions. Nol a one of lhese indicales lhal Chrislianily has anylhing
lo do vilh moraIily or elhics.
One olher reference in lhe Nev Teslamenl vhere some IngIish
lransIalions use lhe vord "moraI" shouId be noled. In II Ieler 1:5 lhe
NAS lransIales, "...in your failh suIy moraI exceIIence, and in your
moraI exceIIence knovIedge,..." A singIe Greek vord is used for lhe
hrase "moraI exceIIence." The Greek vord is arcic, having lo do vilh
virluous or honorabIe behavioraI exression. The meaning mighl be an
admonilion lo aIIov for a consislenl behavioraI oulvorking of our
failh, bul lhe verse does nol advocale moraIily or elhics as lhe vords
are defined and used in lhe IngIish Ianguage loday.

"MoraIily" and "elhics" have lo do vilh human definilion and evaIua-
lion of human aclivilies, and vhelher such aclivilies are sociaIIy ac-
celabIe or unaccelabIe, aroved or unaroved, as righl or vrong,
good or bad, reIalive lo lhe inlenlions and desires of lhe revaiIing
human overs and aulhorilies. AIlhough lhe slandard of "moraI" de-
lerminalion and "elhicaI" evaIualion may be said lo be of God, il is
,
never reaIIy any higher lhan man and his individuaI or coIIeclive al-
lemls lo conlroI human behavior.
Dctcrmining "gnnd" and "right"
The definilions of "moraIily" and "elhics" aIvays seem lo emIoy ref-
erences lo good and eviI, righl and vrong conducl, so il is imorlanl lo
undersland hov lhese designalions are delermined and evaIualed.
Whal delermines vhal is "good" or "righl"` Do goodness or righleous-
ness exisl in and of lhemseIves` Does eviI exisl in and of ilseIf` Is lhere
such a lhing as "aulonomous goodness," an aulonomous elhic slan-
dard, or vhal }acques IIIuI refers lo as lhe "aulonomy of moraIily`"
4

Chrislianily asserls lhal God aIone is aulonomous, indeendenl and
seIf-exislenl. Iverylhing and everyone eIse is deendenl and deriva-
live.

When one osils an aulonomous slandard of "good" or a searaled
Iav of "righl" behavior, vhich is ob|eclive lo, olher lhan, and oulside of
God, lhen such an ideoIogicaI enlily becomes a reIacemenl for God.
Such a menlaI formuIalion becomes lhe foundalion of sociaI moraIily
as lhe individuaIs vilhin lhal sociaI unil bov dovn in cuslomary con-
formily lo lhe ideoIogicaI idoI.
MoraIily aIvays begins vilh lhe remise of aulonomy and inde-
endenl exislence. The moraIily lhesis seems lo divide inlo al Ieasl
lhree remises:
(1) "Good" exisls in ilseIf.
(2) "Good" is knovabIe in ilseIf.
(3) "Good" is do-abIe by oneseIf.
These lhree remises are anlilhelicaI lo Chrislian monolheislic un-
derslanding and lhe goseI of grace. Chrislianily denies (1) lhe inde-
endenl, aulonomous seIf-exislenl "good," (2) lhe seIf-delermined, seIf-
defined, seIf-discernmenl of "good" by an aIIeged indeendenl-seIf of
,,
aulonomous man, (3) lhe seIf-aclualing abiIily of lhis aIIeged inde-
endenl-seIf, aulonomous man, lo generale his ovn "good" behavior.
There is no "naluraI goodness" vhich becomes lhe basis of a "naluraI
moraIily" vilhin a "naluraI lheoIogy." "There is none good, no nol one"
(Rom. 3:12). "No one is good, excel God aIone" (Luke 18:19). When
mankind lhinks lhal he can knov "good" and define "good" from his
ovn erseclive aIone, he ends u caIIing "eviI good, and good eviI"
(Isa. 5:20), and Isaiah ronounces a voe uon lhose vho are lhus "vise
in lheir ovn eyes, and cIever in lheir ovn sighl." (Isa. 5:21).
The so-caIIed "good" inlenlions of revaiIing moraIizers aIIegedIy
acling for lhe "good" of lhe vhoIe, lheir moraIilies and elhics are aI-
vays based on lheir faIIen and seIf-serving molivalions. They "bind
u" olhers in lhe lyranny of IegaIislic erformances, encouraging lhem
lo slrive and slruggIe lo erform goodness, righl Iiving, moraIily,
modesly, elc. Such is lhe bondage of reIigion and moraIily.
The Chrislian goseI, conlrary lo such reIigion and moraIily, asserls
lhese lhree monolheislic remises:
(1) "Good" exisls onIy in God.
(2) "Good" is knovabIe onIy as God reveaIs HimseIf.
(3) "Good" is do-abIe onIy as lhe characler of God is aclivaled and ex-
ressed in human behavior by lhe grace of God.
To exand on lhese remises and documenl lheir ibIicaI basis:
(1) "God is good" is an asserlion made lhroughoul lhe Scrilures. "No
one is good excel God aIone" (Mark 10:18, Luke 18:19). "There is One
vho is good" (Mall. 19:17). There is no Iegilimale, genuine, absoIule
"good" vhich has any ob|eclive, indeendenl, aulonomous exislence,
aarl from God. "Good" exisls excIusiveIy in lhe essence of lhe
aulonomous God. "Good" can onIy be defined by lhe characler of
God's goodness.
,
(2) God has reveaIed HimseIf, and has lhus reveaIed His characler of
goodness. "He has loId you, O man, vhal is good" (Micah 6:8). God's
leIIing man vhal is good is nol lo be conslrued mereIy as a verbaIiza-
lion of a reveaIed slandard of good behavior. God has reveaIed His
goodness in lhe uIlimale reveIalion of HimseIf in His Son, }esus Chrisl,
and lhal nol lo be underslood as mereIy hisloricaI or lheoIogicaI. We
can onIy reaIIy knov vhal good is by knoving God lhrough }esus
Chrisl. ul, again, knoving God and His goodness is nol |usl cerebraI,
lheorelicaI or academic, such musl be Iiving and ersonaI. The reveaI-
ing of God's goodness and lhe knoving of God's goodness are nol
slalicaIIy conlained in an evenl (incarnalion) or an exerience (conver-
sion). The knoving of God's goodness is nol lo be soIidified, ob|ecli-
fied, codified in Iav-form (Lav) or a slalic vrillen record (ibIe), nor
formuIaled and syslemalized in a slalic beIief-syslem vhich becomes
"dead Ieller" (II Cor. 3:6,7, Rom. 2:29). The reveaIing and lhe knoving
of God's goodness is by an ever-dynamic ersonaI reveIalion of God as
lo hov He desires lo exress His goodness in us uniqueIIy and
noveIIy, a nev, fresh, sonlaneous and Iiving exression of His good-
ness vhich can never be conlained or exIained. God's goodness is
knovabIe onIy as He reveaIs HimseIf.
(3) God's goodness is do-abIe, exressabIe in human behavior, onIy as
lhe characler of God is dynamicaIIy generaled and aclualed by God's
grace. OnIy God can acliveIy exress His goodness. Il is nol a com-
modily lo be dislribuled. Il is nol a moraI allern lo be imilaled. God's
goodness can be exressed vilhin His crealion in human behavior,
onIy by His ovn energizing, emovering and enabIing, i.e. His grace.
The aclive exression of aII genuine goodness in our behavior is aI-
vays derived from God. "The one vho does good is of God" (III }ohn
11), "of God" is lransIaled from lhe Greek hrase ck inccs, referring lo
source, origin or derivalion from God. In olher vords, "lhe one vho
manifesls goodness derives vhal he does oul of God." The exression
of goodness in human behavior is aIvays conlingenl uon God's gen-
eraling exression of His ovn characler (grace), and lhe derivalive re-
celivily of God's aclivily by man (failh). "Good" is do-abIe onIy as lhe
characler of God is aclivaled in human behavior by lhe grace of God.
,;
Relurning nov lo furlher documenl lhe firsl remise lhal "God is
good," and lhal God is lhe basis of defining aII goodness. AIongside
lhe remise lhal "God is good" one mighl adduce olher remises lhal
asserl lhal somelhing eIse is "good," vhelher a erson, an ob|ecl, an
idea or an aclivily. IxamIes: "}oe is good." "The ibIe is good." "Chris-
lian beIief is good." "ibIe reading is good." Can aII of lhese slalemenls
be lrue` Yes. Are lhey equivaIenl remises` No. Can anylhing or any-
one eIse be said lo be "good" in lhe same sense lhal God is good` No!
We musl nol make ourseIf, anolher erson, an ob|ecl, an idea or an ac-
livily equivaIenl lo God.
To aIy malhemalicaI Iogic lo lhese remises, Iel "God is good" be
reresenled by lhe equalion xgood. Anylhing or anyone eIse mighl be
reresenled by ygood. If so, lhen yx, anylhing eIse lhus reresenled
is equivaIenl lo God, yGod. Never! The lvo remises cannol be main-
lained as equaI remises. To do so is eilher lo deify lhe erson or
lhing, or lo reIalivize and reduce God lo simIy an exedienl abslrac-
lion.
When ve slale lhal "God is good," lhe verb "is" is used in an essenliaI
and conslilulionaI sense, bul cannol be so used in lhe olher slalemenls.
Whal (Who) God is, onIy God is! If God is lhe essence of goodness,
lhen nolhing or no one eIse can be lhe essence of goodness. This mighl
be referred lo as lhe "non-lransferrabiIily of God's allribules." Some-
lhing or someone eIse cannol be said lo be inherenlIy and essenliaIIy
vhal onIy God excIusiveIy is. We musl nol allribule an allribule of
God lo ourseIves, anolher erson, an ob|ecl, an idea or an aclivily, for
in so doing ve deify such and make il an idoI.
The Chrislian asserlion lhal "God is good" is made in reference lo His
olher reveaIed allribules vhich may be used adverbiaIIy lo exIain His
goodness. God is essenliaIIy, inherenlIy, inlrinsicaIIy, conslilulionaIIy,
absoIuleIy, erfeclIy, uIlimaleIy, singuIarIy, aulonomousIy, indeend-
enlIy, excIusiveIy, suremeIy, sovereignIy, lolaIIy, vhoIIy, uniqueIy,
ersonaIIy, elernaIIy, reaIIy good. Thus ve cIarify and quaIify vhal ve
mean vhen ve say "God is good." The verb "is" is emIoyed as lhe
,8
lhird erson singuIar of "lo be." God is lhe being, lhe essence of aII
goodness, lhe reaIily, lhe nalure of aII goodness. God conslilules and
comrises goodness. God eslabIishes goodness. These are underIying
meanings of our Chrislian asserlion lhal "God is good."
The verb "lo be" has olher meanings in lhe IngIish Ianguage, vhich if
lhus inlerreled in lhe slalemenl "God is good" vouId Iead lo moraI
and elhicaI slandards conlrary lo Chrislian underslanding. When ve
say lhal "God is good," ve do nol mean lhal God beIongs lo a cIass of
"goodness" or lhal God conforms lo a "slandard of goodness." Nor do
ve mean lhal God symboIizes "goodness" or is lo be cIassified, calego-
rized or characlerized vilhin a calegory of "goodness."
Whal do ve mean by lhe lerm "good" vhich forms lhe ob|ecl of lhe
slalemenl "God is good"` We can onIy define and describe "good" by
lhe characler of God if He is lhe source and essence of aII good. Thus
ve emIoyed adverbs lo describe good vhich vere bul olher fealures
of God's characler. God's goodness can onIy be described by His God-
Iiness! The being of God defines good!
There are olher definilions and connolalions of "good" in lhe IngIish
Ianguage, aII of vhich have a reIalive evaIualion in reIalion lo some-
lhing eIse olher lhan God. When ve asserl lhal "God is good," ve do
nol mean mereIy lhal God is reIaliveIy, beneficiaIIy, advanlageousIy,
rofilabIy, allracliveIy, effecliveIy, suilabIy, roerIy, favorabIy, Ieas-
ingIy, reseclabIy, honorabIy, commendabIy, vhoIesomeIy, accela-
bIy, salisfacloriIy, moraIIy, elhicaIIy good. Il is nol lhal "God is good"
because He conforms lo a moraI slandard, because He rovides vhal
is beneficiaI, because He has uliIilarian advanlage, because He serves a
urose. If "God is good" because He serves a urose, lhen lhe ur-
ose is higher lhan God. If "God is good" because He conforms lo a
moraI slandard, lhen lhe slandard is higher lhan God. God's goodness
is lhus reIalive lo somelhing eIse and nol absoIule in HimseIf. This
vouId osil an ob|ecl, idea or aclivily oulside of God, ob|eclive lo God
and by definilion suerior lo God, by vhich "goodness" is eslabIished
,
and delermined. Il is an idoIalrous allribulion of an allribule of God lo
somelhing olher lhan God.
Anolher sublIe mislake is lo say lhal "God is good" because He does
good. Divine aclivily lhen becomes lhe ob|eclive basis of delermining
God's characler. God's goodness vouId lhen be based on His erform-
ance. The IsaImisl vriles, "Thou arl good and doesl good" (Is. 119:68).
Nolice lhal lhe slalemenl is nol "lhou doesl good and lherefore arl
good."
God does vhal He does because He is vho He is! His doing srings
from His being. His conducl fIovs oul of His characler, and He aIvays
acls "in characler." Chrislian lheoIogy musl commence vilh vho God
is, nol vilh vhal God does, nol His Ian, His uroses, His decrees,
His sovereignly, His aclions. Il is a sublIe form of idoIalry lo aIIov lhe
conducl of God lo suIanl and suersede lhe characler of God, lhe
erformance of God lo be lhe basis of lhe Ierson of God. So much of
Weslern lheoIogy has done |usl lhal, basing lheir lheoIogy on lhe ur-
ose and aclivily of God ralher lhan on lhe characler of God. Il is be-
cause "God is good" lhal "God does good." He brings forlh His exres-
sion oul of His good characler. Il can even be said lhal He does vhal
He does ck inccs, oul of His ovn characler. He lhus aclivales His ovn
characler lo be manifesled in human behavior. He does vhal He does,
because He is vho He is! AII good done is done by lhe God vho is
good.
When any genuine "goodness" is exressed in lhe behavior of man, il
is lhe aclivily of God exressing His characler of goodness by His
grace. MoraIily, on lhe olher hand, is based on lhe lhesis of man's seIf-
generaled aclivily conforming lo some indeendenl "slandard of
goodness," vhich may be idenlified in some vay vilh God's aclivily or
vilh sociaI benefil.
When an aIIegedIy indeendenl, aulonomous, seIf-exislenl ideaI of
"good" behavioraI aclivily is subsliluled for God, vho aIone is inde-
endenl, aulonomous, seIf-exislenl "Good," lhen lhe ideaI has become
an idoI. The eslabIishmenl of a "slandard of good" behavioraI aclivilies
o
aarl from vho God is in His characler and vhal God does by His
grace, is lhe eslabIishmenl of a faIse subslilule for God, i.e. an idoI.
Any delerminalive "slandard of good" aarl from, ob|eclive lo, or oul-
side of lhe inherenl eing and characler of God and lhe grace aclivily
of God, is necessariIy idoIalrous!
The humanislic remise of an aIIegedIy indeendenl-seIf, aulono-
mous man, conslrucling an aIIegedIy indeendenl, aulonomous "slan-
dard of good," and lhen conforming lo such by his aIIegedIy inde-
endenl, aulonomous, seIf-generaled, seIf-aclivaled behavioraI acliv-
ily, lhal is lhe foundalion on vhich moraIily is buiIl. Il couId nol be
more anlilhelicaI or oosile lo Chrislianily!
Human behavioraI aclivilies are nol good or eviI in lhemseIves (such
vouId be lo osil lhe firsl remise of moraIism) and are nol generaled
by ourseIves (such vouId osil lhe lhird remise of moraIism). An ac-
livily is nol inherenlIy good, for onIy God is inherenlIy good. Human
aclivily is mereIy "exression." Il is nol crealive generalion oul of man.
We are nol gods! We are derivalive crealures. Man is nol a seIf-
generaling aclualor of his ovn aclivilies nor of lhe characler of eilher
good or eviI exressed vilhin lhose aclivilies.
The vords "acl," "aclion," and "aclivily" in lhe IngIish Ianguage are
elymoIogicaIIy derived from lhe Lalin vords acius, "doing," and aciun,
"lhing done." Human aclivily is aIvays enacled by an aclualor. A siri-
luaI ersonage is lhe agenl of aclivalion, causing and moving a ar-
licuIar characler lo be aclivaled and exressed in our behavior. Our
behavior and lhe characler exressed lherein is aIvays enacled (in-
acled), caused lo be aclivaled vilhin. Il is nol seIf-generaled, aulo-
crealive, aclivaled by lhe seIf-efforl of human efforl. There is aIvays a
derivalive conlingency lo human behavior. AII lhal ve do is conlin-
genl on lhe siriluaI aclion of a siriluaI being aIIoved by our deci-
sion-making lo acl oul in our behavior. The siriluaI being vho em-
overs, enabIes, energizes and enacls our behavioraI exression aI-
vays conveys his arlicuIar characler in lhe aclivily, characler of eilher
good or eviI, oul of eilher God or salan. The characler lhal is being ex-
s
ressed in any human aclivily musl be lraced back lo ils siriluaIIy
emovering aclualor. Human behavior aIvays exresses lhe characler
of lhe energizing siril vho is lhe aclualor of lhal exression being en-
acled in human behavior. Ior examIe, }esus observed lhe reIigious
and moraI exlernaI aclivilies of lhe Iharisees and concIuded lhal lhere
vas a siriluaI emovering aclualor behind vhal lhey did: "You are
of your falher, lhe deviI..." (}ohn 8:44).
Mankind aIvays has a derived siriluaI condilion, based on lhe siri-
luaI indveIIing of a siriluaI being, and a derived behavior exression,
manifesling lhe characler of lhe siriluaI being vho is energizing (cn-
crgcc, lo vork in) and enacling (cn-acius, lo do in) lhe human aclivily.
Whenever ve mighl refer lo a man being good, il is never in lhe
same sense lhal "God is good." Man is nol essenliaIIy good, conslilu-
lionaIIy good, inherenlIy good or inlrinsicaIIy good. Man is nol by na-
lure good, neilher does he eslabIish goodness, nor is he seIf-
generaliveIy good. A man's goodness is reIalive lo his/her deriving lhe
exression of God's characler of goodness in his/her siriluaI condilion
and in his/her behavioraI exression.
Consislenl reasoning musl aIy lhis lo lhe oosile exression aIso,
in lhe reaIm of lheodicy. God is good. The IviI One is eviI. Man is eviI,
nol in lhe same sense lhal lhe IviI one is eviI. Man is nol essenliaIIy
eviI, conslilulionaIIy eviI, inherenlIy eviI, inlrinsiciaIIy eviI. Man is nol
by nalure eviI, does nol eslabIish eviI, is nol definiliveIy eviI, is nol
seIf-generaliveIy eviI. Man is nol a deviI. A man is eviI onIy reIalive lo
his/her deriving lhe exression of lhe characler of lhe IviI One in
his/her siriluaI condilion and behavioraI exression.
The oinl being made is lhal lhere is a derivalive delerminalion of
good and eviI from lhe nalure and characler of God and salan, resec-
liveIy. There is no aulonomous good or eviI (firsl remise of moraI-
ism). There is no seIf-delermined avareness of good or eviI (second
remise of moraIism). There is no humanIy generaled good or eviI
(lhird remise of moraIism).
z
The hisloricaI origins of lhis derivalive characler exression in man
musl be lraced back lo lhe ibIicaI accounl in Genesis lvo and lhree. Il
is lhere lhal ve discover lhe firsl faIIacious allemls of man lo deler-
mine good and eviI aulonomousIy, aarl from lheir consubslanliaIily
in God or salan.
The "lree of Iife" reresenled lhe choice of man lo recognize lhal good-
ness exisls in God aIone (firsl lheislic remise), lhal good vas knov-
abIe onIy by Iislening lo God's reveIalion (second lheislic remise),
and lhal by voIilionaI recelivily lo God's indveIIing rovision of His
Life lhere vas divine sufficiency lo manifesl lhe characler of God's
goodness in man's behavior (lhird lheislic remise). Thus man vas
free lo funclion as God inlended by lhe exression of lhe characler of
lhe Crealor vilhin lhe behavior of lhe crealure, free lo be and do vhal
God inlended lo be and do in man.
The "lree of lhe knovIedge of good and eviI," on lhe olher hand, vas
a re|eclion of God's inlenl. The "falher of Iies" (}ohn 8:44) vanled lo
"cover-u" lhe derivalive delerminalion of good and eviI. He foisled
uon man lhe deIusionaI idea of seIf-delermined moraIily, lhal man
couId be "Iike God, knoving good and eviI" (Gen. 3:5), eslabIishing
and delermining good and eviI by oneseIf, indeendenl, from one's
ovn erseclive and cenler of reference.
"Salan ersuaded man...lhal he had an adequale caacily in himseIf for
being good, vilhoul lhe necessily of having God, lhal he couId be
righleous in his ovn righl, moraIIy aduIl vilhoul lhe need of being
siriluaIIy aIive! In shorl, lhal man couId be indeendenl -- bolh cause
and effecl!"
5

Thal is vhere moraIily slarled, al lhe faII of man. Thenceforlh man
vas naluraIIy seIf-deceived as lo his abiIily lo be lhe arbiler and gen-
eralor of good and eviI, lhinking lhal he couId eslabIish elhicaI slan-
dards of good and eviI, righl and vrong, on lhe basis of human seIf-
evaIualion of individuaI and coIIeclive sociaI "good." NaluraI man has
osiled lhe lhree remises of moraIism every since: (1) seIf-exislenl
good. (2) seIf-delermined good. (3) seIf-olenliaI of good. The moraIi-
;
lies of men, vilh lheir reIalivized, seIf-orienled slandards of good and
eviI, are aIvays conlrary lo God's inlenl, aIvays sinfuI, and aIvays de-
rived from salanic source.
Thc Rc|cctinn nI Mnra!ity.
MoraIily is anlilhelicaI lo aII Chrislian beIief and behavior. Admil-
ledIy, if one does nol undersland lhe foundalion aIready Iaid in differ-
enlialing belveen moraIily and Chrislianily, and lhe derivalion of
good and eviI from God or salan resecliveIy, lhen lhe slalemenls be-
Iov viII aear lo be bizarre, oulIandish and aImosl bIashemous.
(1) MoraIily is a |oke. Il is a bad |oke lhal is nol even funny, because il
is lragic. Ior lhe dedicaled reIigionisl, moraIily is no |oking maller. Il is
lhe basis of his/her reIigion. ul for lhe Chrislian, moraIily is a |oke.
Il vas C.S. Levis vho firsl exressed lhis lhoughl.
"I lhink aII Chrislians vouId agree vilh me if I said lhal lhough Chris-
lianily seems al firsl lo be aII aboul moraIily, aII aboul dulies and ruIes
and guiIl and virlue, yel il Ieads you on, oul of aII lhal, inlo somelhing
beyond. One has a gIimse of a counlry vhere lhey do nol laIk of lhese
lhings, excel erhas as a |oke. Iveryone lhere is fiIIed fuII vilh vhal
ve shouId caII goodness as a mirror is fiIIed vilh Iighl. ul lhey do nol
caII il goodness. They do nol caII il anylhing. They are nol lhinking of
il. They are loo busy Iooking al lhe source from vhich il comes."
6

Has anyone ever become "good" or "righleous" on lhe basis of mor-
aIIy roer behavior` ImossibIe! Absurd! Thal is vhal makes moraI-
ily such a IaughabIe maller: ils uller absurdily and imossibiIily (lhe
basis of many a |oke.) MoraIily is Salan's big Iaugh on mankind.
(2) MoraIily is a resuIl of lhe faII of man inlo sin. As noled, lhe dece-
live lemlalion of lhe Temler in lhe garden of Iden vas lo suggesl
lhal man couId deveIo a seIf-delermined knovIedge of good and eviI.
Thal vas lhe firsl lemlalion lo deveIo moraIily, lo eslabIish an in-
deendenl, seIf-orienled slandard of good and eviI. Re|ecling lhe de-

rived goodness of God, man oled for lhe Iie. NaluraI men, reIigious
men, have been deveIoing moraIilies ever since, lrying lo reguIale
man's behavior.
(3) MoraIily is a Iie. Il is based on lhe Iie of indeendenl-seIf, aulono-
mous man. The lrue condilion of man is lhal of derivalive conlingency
uon siriluaI being for bolh siriluaI condilion and behavioraI ex-
ression.
(4) MoraIily is sinfuI. If sin is defined as anylhing nol derived from
God, lhen moraIily is sinfuI because il advocales lhe aulonomy of
goodness and faiIs lo undersland lhe siriluaI derivaliveness of aII
human behavior. "Whalever is nol of failh is sin" (Rom. 14:23), and
moraIily is nol based on lhe derived recelivily of failh. Therefore il is
sinfuI.
(5) MoraIily is humanislic. Humanism is based on lhe lhesis of lhe
aulonomous seIf-olenliaI of mankind, lhe suggeslion of vhich vas
firsl inlroduced in lhe garden. MoraIily is humanislic because "good-
ness" is aIIeged lo be knovabIe by oneseIf (second remise of moraI-
ism) and do-abIe by oneseIf (lhird remise of moraIism). The seIf-
olenliaI of seIf-generaled, seIf-aclivaled behavioraI aclivily is al lhe
rool of aII moraIily.
(6) MoraIily is sychoIogicaI maniuIalion. ehaviorislic sychoIogy
allemls lo maniuIale human behavior in "behavior modificalion,"
faiIing lo undersland lhe siriluaI source of aII behavior. The sociaI
moraIisls emIoy such behaviorislic sychoIogicaI maniuIalion lo
kee lheir arlicuIar "sociely" in check and funclioning in accord vilh
lheir seIf-orienled ob|eclives.
(7) MoraIily is offensive lo God. God hales moraIily! Il is conlrary lo
His inlenl for mankind. Isaiah grahicaIIy slales lhal "aII our righleous
deeds are as a fiIlhy rag" (Isaiah 64:6). AII our moraI aclions by vhich
ve lry lo be good or righleous, vhen resenled before God are as of-
fensive as resenling Him vilh a menslruaI cIolh, a "dirly Kolex!"
(This is lhe IileraI meaning of lhe Hebrev vords.) Lesl you be of-
,
fended al such grahic anaIogy, |usl be avare lhal God is even more
offended al our eriodic discharges of moraIily, resenlalions vhich
are lhe discharge of dealh vilh no Iife. The iclure is no rellier vhen
IauI describes his reIigious and moraI efforls as bul "rubbish" or
"dung" (K}V) in IhiIiians 3:8. MoraIily is offensive lo God.
(8) MoraIily is "anolher goseI." When IauI vrole lo lhe GaIalians
varning lhem of lhe reIigionisls vho vere lrying lo add moraIislic re-
quiremenls lo lhe simIe goseI of grace in }esus Chrisl, he indicaled
lhal lhey vere bringing "anolher goseI" vhich vas "no goseI" al aII
since il vas devoid of any "good nevs." Hislory is reIele vilh moraI
suIemenls becoming arl and arceI of so-caIIed "Chrislian reIig-
ion." Whenever moraIily is inlroduced il suIanls lhe singuIar suffi-
ciency of }esus Chrisl and conslilules "anolher goseI."
(9) MoraIily is "saIvalion by vorks." MoraIily osils aclivily lhal is
suosedIy derived from oneseIf, and is lherefore "saIvalion by
vorks." IauI vrole lo lhe Ihesians exIaining, "Ior by grace are you
saved lhrough failh, lhal nol of yourseIves, il is lhe gifl of God, nol of
vorks Iesl any man shouId boasl" (Ih. 2:8,9). SaIvalion is aIvays en-
acled by lhe dynamic of God's saving vork in lhe rovision of His
grace. The commencemenl of lhal saIvalion is in conversion, bul lhe
conlinuing dynamic of lhe "saving Iife" of }esus Chrisl (Rom. 5:10)
makes us safe from salanic misuse, abuse and dysfunclion in order lo
reslore us lo lhe funclionaI use God inlended by His grace aclivily in
lhe Chrislian.
(10) MoraIily is IegaIism. MoraIily sels u a "slandard" of behavior, a
codificalion of accelabIe conducl. These ruIes and reguIalions of righl
and vrong form an indeendenl, exlernaI Iav, lo vhich aII sub|ecls are
execled lo conform. Slriving lo conform lo lhe Iav is lhus lhe moraI-
islic ob|eclive of "obedience." MoraIislic, IegaIislic "obedience lo lhe
Iav" is far removed from lhe "obedience of failh" (Rom. 1:5) lhal Iislens
under God's Siril and is obedienl lo Life.
(11) MoraIily is deadIy. There is cerlainIy no vibrancy and vilaIily of
divine Iife in lhe IegaIism of moraIily. IauI vriles in II Cor. 3:6, "lhe

Ieller kiIIs, bul lhe Siril gives Iife." The "Ieller of lhe Iav" on vhich
moraIily resls is deadIy! Il kiIIs aII exression of God's Iife in man, as
man vorks himseIf lo dealh!
(12) MoraIily is devaslaling and deslruclive. IncaabIe of ever measur-
ing u lo lhe moraI requiremenls, man is increasingIy fruslraled, un-
hay and grieved. }ames S. Slevarl, lhe Scollish reacher, vriles,
"The evangeI of an elhicaI examIe is a devaslaling lhing. Il makes re-
Iigion lhe mosl grievous of burdens. Ierhas lhis is lhe reason vhy,
even among rofessing Chrislians, lhere are so many slrained faces
and veary hearls and calive, unreIeased sirils."
7

The moraIily vhich is inherenl in reIigion is a mosl maddening exeri-
ence, il drives a erson "mad."
(13) MoraIily is bondage. MoraIily binds a erson, making lhem sIaves
lo Iav, convenlion and sociaI arovaI. To lhe GaIalians IauI ex-
Iained, "Il vas for freedom lhal Chrisl sel us free,...do nol be sub|ecl
again lo a yoke of sIavery" (GaI. 5:1). MoraIily deslroys lhe freedom lo
be and do vhalever God vanls lo be and do in us. The rigid chains of
moraI infIexibiIily aIIov for no noveIly, nevness, no sonlaneily of
fresh exression of lhe Siril.
(14) MoraIily is IharisaicaI. The Iharisees engaged in lheir ereluaI
relense of iely. Though lheir moraIislic allemls are oflen caIIed
"seIf-righleousness," in reaIily lhey had a seudo-righleousness, no
righleousness al aII, |usl sin! }esus delesled, oosed and exosed lhe
IharisaicaI moraIily. Irank Lake recognized lhe Iharisaism of moraI-
ily:
"IlhicaI behavior by ilseIf can loo easiIy enlrench a man in seIf-
righleousness. He has |oined lhe Iharisee, raying vilh himseIf lo a
god vho is nol lhe Ialher of our Lord }esus Chrisl, 'I lhank lhee lhal I
am nol as olher men are.' ...No morlaI man can vin by seIf-efforl vhal
in lhe nalure of lhings musl aIvays be a gifl."
8

;
(15) MoraIily is frauduIenl. Il can never deIiver vhal il romises. Il
does nol achieve lhe resuIls il is designed lo achieve. IauI exIains in
CoIossians 2:23 lhal moraIily is of "no vaIue againsl fIeshIy induI-
gence." Those allerned roensilies of seIfishness and sinfuIness in
lhe desires of our souI viII never be deaIl vilh, or overcome by, moraI
suressionism or by moraI slriving lo overcome.
(16) MoraIily is a conlrived subslilule for Chrislian Iiving. As a oslur-
ing relexl of Iiving a "good Chrislian Iife," moraIily Iays lhe arl of
an imoslor. }acques IIIuI noles lhal
"moraIily is lhe means vhereby lhe Chrislian dodges dealh in Chrisl
and fashions a Iiving vay of his ovn. Il is lhe vorsl of aII iIIusions."
9

Inslead of disaIIoving our seIfish exressions by aIIoving lhe Iife of
}esus Chrisl lo be Iived oul lhrough us, moraIily masquerades seIf-
orienled conformily as "siriluaI behavior." Hyocrisy!
(17) MoraIily is idoIalry. Ian Thomas vriles of
"seeking lo be godIy by submilling yourseIf lo exlernaI ruIes and regu-
Ialions, and by conformily lo behavior allerns imosed uon you by
lhe arlicuIar Chrislian sociely vhich you have chose, and in vhich
you hoe lo be found 'accelabIe.' You viII in lhis vay ereluale lhe
agan habil of raclicing reIigion in lhe energy of lhe 'fIesh,' and in lhe
very ursuil of righleousness commil idoIalry in honoring 'Chrislian-
ily' more lhan Chrisl."
10

MoraIily reduces God lo a "lhing," a moraI ideaI, an elhicaI slandard, a
reIigious execlalion of conformily and a behavioraI formuIa. The
ideaI becomes an ideoIogicaI idoI conslrucled and carved in lhe human
mind. The reIigious moraIisl lhen submils lo lhe moraI ideaI, ralher
lhan lo God.
(18) MoraIily is salanic. Desile lhe facl lhal many reIigious eoIe
equale moraIily vilh godIiness, il is reaIIy lhe decelive and diaboIic
laclic of lhe deceiver. The deviI, lhe "falher of Iies" (}ohn 8:44) and aII
8
faIsehood, has subsliluled a faIIacious syslem of behavioraI guideIines
as lhe basis of "goodness." The "god of lhis vorId" (II Cor. 4:4) has
bIinded lhe minds of men lo kee lhem from seeing lhal anylhing nol
derived from God is eviI and sinfuI. In lhe name of "reIigion," moraIily
is eslabIished vhich caIIs lhe seIfishIy molivaled efforls of man "good"
and "righleous," vhen lhey are bul eviI derived from lhe IviI One.
(19) MoraIily is a reIigious inevilabiIily. Wherever you find reIigion
you viII find moraIily` They are aIvays "couIed" logelher. Why` e-
cause reIigion is a man-made, salan-insired, sociaI organizalion lhal
requires moraIily slandards lo give il exlernaI form, lo give il raison
d'elre, lo cemenl IoyaIly and conformily, and lo kee lhe guiIl ay-
menls coming in. As eoIe erceive lheir inabiIily lo Iease and a-
ease God by lheir inadequale moraI behavior, lhey seek lo buy off
lheir sin in "induIgences."
(20) MoraIily is a vorIdIy necessily. In lhe sociely of lhe "vorId," lhal
is of faIIen mankind, moraIily is necessilaled lo kee lhe chaos of seIf-
ishness and sinfuIness "in check," if even lemorariIy. Again }acques
IIIuI vriles lhal moraIily
"is arl of lhe condilion of lhe faII. Nov endoved vilh lhe over lo
define good and eviI, lo eIaborale il, lo knov il and lo relend lo obey
il, man can no Ionger renounce lhis over lhal he has urchased so
dearIy. He cannol Iive vilhoul moraIily."
11

The vorIdIiness of human sociely, faIIen man in lhis faIIen vorId, ne-
cessilales moraIily. MoraIily is of lhe order of vorIdIiness!
(21) MoraIily is reIalive. Human, sociaI, vorIdIy and reIigious moraIily
is never roerIy reIaled lo lhe absoIuleness of God's characler of
goodness, and lo lhe absoIuleIy onIy exression of God's goodness by
derivalion from God by God's grace. MoraIily is reIalive lo lhe inlenls
and desires of lhe revaiIing aulhorilies in lhe arlicuIar sociely over
vhich lhey have maniuIalive conlroI (ex. governmenlaI, eccIesiasli-
caI, elc.) MoraIily is reIalive lo lhe ma|orily of lhe individuaIs in lhal
sociely viIIing lo accel lhe moraI slandards, eilher under lhreal of

unishmenl or by democralic concensus of vhal is "good" and/or
"eviI" vilh an individuaI accounlabiIily lo lhe so-caIIed "good" of lhe
vhoIe. MoraIily is reIalive lo lhe Iimilalions of faIIen man in keeing
such moraI condilions, due lo lhe allerned seIfishness and sinfuIness
of lhe "fIesh."
(22) MoraIily is anlilhelicaI lo Chrislianily. MoraIily aIvays allemls
lo eslabIish "goodness" aarl from ils derivalion oul of God aIone, and
ils avaiIabiIily lo man by lhe indveIIing of }esus Chrisl aIone. MoraIily
denies lhe derived exislence of good in lhe characler of God. MoraIily
denies lhe derived knovIedge of good by lhe reveIalion of God. Mo-
raIily denies lhe derived exression of good by lhe grace of God. Mo-
raIily recIudes lhe rimary asserlion of lhe Chrislian goseI, lhal lhe
avaiIabiIily for lhe exression of God's goodness in man is onIy by lhe
resence and emovering of lhe Siril of Chrisl in man, received by
failh in regeneralion and sanclificalion.
MoraIily never effecls Chrislian behavior. Once again IIIuI remarks
lhal
"MoraIily...necessariIy coIIides vilh God's decision broughl lo ass in
}esus Chrisl, vhich Iocales lhe Iife and lrulh of man oul beyond any-
lhing lhal man can formuIale, knov and Iive."
12

Chrislianily is "anlimoraIily."
13

Thc Distinctivc nI Christianity and Christian bchavinr
Whal has aIready been noled by conlrasl musl nov be exIained
more exIicilIy: lhe radicaI difference of lhe Chrislian goseI from aII
moraIilies. C.S. Levis exresses lhis so succinclIy vhen he vriles lhal
Chrislianily
"differs from ordinary ideas of 'moraIily' and 'being good.' ...lhe vhoIe
of Chrislianily is 'ulling on Chrisl.' Chrislianily offers nolhing eIse."
14

Then eIsevhere he vriles,
;o
"...lhe Chrislian is in a differenl osilion from olher eoIe vho are
lrying lo be good. ...lhe Chrislian lhinks lhal any good he does comes
from lhe Chrisl-Iife inside him."
15

Having reviousIy noled lhal "God is good," and lhal lhis slalemenl
is semanlicaIIy and hiIosohicaIIy differenl lhan any olher slalemenl
lhal refers lo goodness, lhe dislinclive of Chrislianily begins vilh lhe
facl lhal }esus Chrisl is God and lherefore }esus Chrisl is good. }esus as
God is lhe essence of goodness, by nalure good, absoIuleIy good, in-
deendenlIy good, lhe source of aII good in lhe Chrislian.
The monolheislic remises noled reviousIy vere (1) Good exisls
onIy in God. (2) Good is knovabIe onIy as God reveaIs His characler.
(3) Good is do-abIe onIy as lhe characler of God is exressed by lhe
grace of God. In lhe Chrislian asserlion lhal }esus Chrisl is God lhe
remises concerning goodness are defined even more dislincliveIy.
Ivery Chrislian has "in }esus Chrisl" (1) lhe resence of lhe good
vilhin him/her by lhe indveIIing resence of }esus Chrisl. (2) lhe on-
going reveIalion of lhe good by lhe aclive enIighlenmenl of lhe Siril
of Chrisl. (3) lhe caabiIily of exressing God's characler of goodness
by lhe energizing, enabIing and emovering of lhe Siril of Chrisl.
The Chrislian has received lhe resence of God, lhe Iife of }esus Chrisl,
vilhin his/her siril al regeneralion, consliluling lhe resloralion of
God's inlenl for His human crealion. Any conneclion of God's good-
ness lo man's siriluaI condilion or behavioraI exression is onIy by
lhe siriluaI recelion of lhe Iife of }esus Chrisl by failh. }esus said,
"No man comelh unlo lhe Ialher, bul by Me" (}ohn 14:6). We mighl
adal lhal lo read, "No man comelh unlo Goodness, bul by Me."
Some cIarificalions need lo be made al lhe oulsel as ve consider hov
God's goodness is connecled lo lhe Chrislian:
When ve become Chrislians and receive lhe Good-One, lhe God-
One, }esus Chrisl, inlo our siril, lhis is nol lo imIy lhal ve become
good, and nov are good, for ve have aIready asserled lhal onIy "God
is good." Scrilure does indicale lhal lhe Roman Chrislians vere "fuII
of goodness" (Rom. 15:14), lhal Chrislians are "made erfecl" (Heb.
;s
12:23), and lhal ve "become lhe righleousness of God in Him" (II Cor.
5:21). ul lo indicale lhal ve are made, lhal ve become, lhal ve are
good, erfecl, righleous, hoIy elc. musl be done vilhin lhe conlexl of
lhe resence of God in Chrisl. When reference is made lo becoming
good, being made good, righleous or hoIy, lhis is never lo say lhal ve
are good inherenlIy, inlrinsicaIIy, indeendenlIy, aulonomousIy, or
elernaIIy. We have received lhe Good-One, lhe God-One, }esus, inlo
lhe core of our being, inlo our siril. We are lhus idenlified vilh lhe
Good-One, and in lerms of our siriluaI idenlily ve mighl be knovn
as "good ones," "God-ones," "godIy," "righleous ones," "|uslified," "hoIy
ones," "sainls," "sanclified," "Chrisl-ones," "Chrislians." Such designa-
lions are onIy and aIvays based on lhe indveIIing resence of }esus
Chrisl, never on any aIIeged reaIily lhal has become inlrinsic vilhin
and unlo ourseIves. "The conlainer never becomes lhe conlenls." To
quole }acques IIIuI again,
"The enlire ibIe conslanlIy ilerales lhal nolhing has changed inlrinsi-
caIIy or onloIogicaIIy in lhis erson vho has been enIighlened by lhe
reveIalion. He is saved. He is |uslified. He is sanclified, bul he is sliII
himseIf."
16

In olher vords, lhe Chrislian is sliII a derivalive man, deriving bolh
siriluaI condilion and behavioraI exression from lhe siriluaI source
of }esus Chrisl. We musl avoid aII forms of erfeclionism lhal mighl
imIy lhal ve are erfecl, good, hoIy or righleousness essenliaIIy, con-
slilulionaIIy and inherenlIy.
Whereas lhe firsl cIarificalion has lo do vilh a deniaI of Iasing back
inlo lhe firsl remise of moraIism, lhe second cIarificalion concerns il-
seIf vilh a deniaI of Iasing inlo lhe second and lhird remises of mor-
aIism.
When ve become Chrislians and receive lhe Good-One, lhe God-
One, }esus Chrisl, inlo our siril, lhis is nol lo imIy lhal ve have nov
been invesled vilh lhe inherenl abiIily lo knov vhal is good, or lhe
inherenl caabiIily lo do lhe good. IIIuI exIains lhal lhe Chrislian
does nol have
;z
"any inlrinsic caacily lo do by himseIf lhe good vhich God has sel
forlh. There is no ermanenl lransformalion of his being vhich vouId
consisl in lhis abiIily lo erform lhe viII of God by HimseIf."
17

This is reciseIy vhere so much of lhe leaching of Chrislian reIigion
has |umed lrack inlo lhe second and lhird remises of moraIism. Ior
cenluries lhe goseI has been lyicaIIy resenled as lhe Good-One, lhe
God-One, }esus Chrisl being incarnaled as a man, and Iiving oul lhe
good-Iife erfeclIy, "vilhoul sin" (Heb. 4:15, II Cor. 5:21). Accurale his-
lory. Accurale lheoIogy. Whal usuaIIy haens lhen is lhal lhe hisloric
"resenlalion" of erfecl goodness in human behavior in lhe Iife of }e-
sus Chrisl on earlh is made lo be lhe "slandard" lo vhich lhose vho
assenl lo, or receive, }esus Chrisl are execled lo Iook lo in order lo
knov good (second remise) and conform lo in order lo do good
(lhird remise). Such is lhe lragic "seII-oul" of lhe Chrislian goseI
"dovn lhe river" inlo mere moraIily! Chrislian reIigion has laughl Tnc
|niiaiicn cj Cnrisi (Thomas A'Kemis) by vaIking |n His Sicps (CharIes
SheIdon) in order lo be Iikc Cnrisi (Andrev Murray).
IauI's exIanalion of Chrislian behavior is lhal of "lhe manifeslalion
of lhe Iife of }esus in our morlaI bodies" (II Cor. 4:10,11), nol by any
human imilalion of Chrisl's behavioraI goodness. Chrislian Iiving is
nol "monkey see, monkey do," lhe arrolling or aeing of reroduced
exlernaI behavior. The dislinclive of Chrislian behavior is lhal lhe Iife
of }esus Chrisl is Iived oul in our behavior, lhe characler of God's
goodness manifesled in our behavior. "Il is no Ionger I vho Iives, bul
Chrisl Iives in me, and lhe Iife lhal I nov Iive in lhe fIesh, I Iive by failh
in lhe Son of God, vho Ioved me and gave HimseIf u for me" (GaI.
2:20). The exression of behavioraI goodness is nol by any caabiIily or
efforl from vilhin man. }esus said: "Aarl from Me, you can do nolh-
ing" (}ohn 15:5). Aarl from }esus, you can do nolhing lhal manifesls
lhe characler of God. Aarl from }esus, you can do nolhing good.
Aarl from }esus, you can do nolhing lhal gIorifies God. Aarl from
}esus, you can do nolhing lhal quaIifies as Chrislian behavior.
;;
Thus ve roceed lo furlher amIify lhal }esus Chrisl is lhe soIe
source of aII good behavior in lhe Chrislian. }esus is lhe soIe source of
lhe knovIedge of good behavior. }esus is lhe soIe source of lhe enacl-
ing of good behavior, being lhe exression of God's characler of good-
ness.
Goodness is knovn and aclivaled onIy by God's grace. Grace is
"God's aclivily consislenl vilh His characler."
The onIy vay ve can knov lhe goodness of God, in lhe avareness of
His allribules and characler, in vho God is, and in lhe knovIedge of
hov God in Chrisl vishes lo exress His goodness in our behavior, is
lhal by His grace God reveaIs HimseIf and His inlenl lo us. Il is one
lhing lo knov lhal God is good inleIIecluaIIy, even based on ibIicaI
informalion and hislory, bul il is anolher lhing lo knov lhal God is
good ersonaIIy and exerienliaIIy and hov He desires lo exress lhal
goodness lhrough man. We knov lhe inlenl of God in exressing His
goodness lhrough us onIy by lhe grace of God vhereby lhe Siril of
Chrisl conlinues lo reveaI, lo enIighlen and lo iIIumine our siriluaI
underslanding. We "Iislen under" His inslruclion in lhe "obedience of
failh" in order lo knov hov, vhen, vhere and lo vhom He vishes lo
manifesl His goodness lhrough us. This gracious ersonaI reveIalion of
His goodness in and lhrough us as Chrislian is ever-nev, noveI,
unique, fresh and sonlaneous. Il cannol be exIained in eccIesiaslicaI
ruIes and reguIalions. Il cannol be conlained in codificalions of con-
ducl. Il cannol be relained and reslrained in reelilive riluaIs. Il cannol
be ob|eclified inlo ibIicaI bIuerinls. Il cannol be made slalic. God's
exressions of goodness cannol be ul in a box! God viII reveaI (IhiI.
3:15) His goodness so lhal ve mighl knov His goodness and hov il is
lhal He desires lo exress His goodness in our behavior by His grace.
Likevise, lhe dislinclive of lhe Chrislian goseI for lhe doing of
goodness, lhe manifeslalion of goodness, is onIy and aIvays lhe acliv-
ily of God by lhe indveIIing resence of lhe Siril of Chrisl. "God is al
vork in you bolh lo viII and lo vork for His good Ieasure" (IhiI.
2:13). God is energizing bolh lhe molivalion and lhe oul-vorking of
;
our behavior in accord vilh His good characler and for His good
Ieasure, unlo His gIory. God in Chrisl viII do vhal He desires and
He viII do so by lhe dynamic of His ovn seIf-generaled exression of
goodness. III }ohn 11 reads, "The one doing good is of God." As revi-
ousIy noled, "of God" is ck inccs in Greek, meaning "oul of God." Any
lime ve manifesl genuine goodness il is derived oul of lhe characler of
God, exressed and enacled by lhe over and grace of God.
Whenever ve come across lhe Nev Teslamenl admonilions exhorl-
ing us lo "knov good" and lo "do good," ve musl aIvays remember
lhal lhe dynamic for doing so is in God, in Chrisl.
Romans 16:19 - "I vanl you lo be vise in vhal is good." Hov` y aI-
Ioving God lo conlinue lo reveaI His goodness.
GaI. 6:9,10 - "Iel us nol Iose hearl in doing good...Iel us do good lo aII
men." Hov` y lhe dynamic of God's doing of His goodness in and
lhrough us.
I Thess. 5:21 - "hoId fasl lo vhal is good, abslain from every form of
eviI." Whal is good` Thal vhich exresses God's characler of goodness.
Hov are ve going lo hoId fasl lo lhal and abslain from every form of
eviI` Three verses Ialer in I Thess 5:24 ve read, "IailhfuI is He vho
caIIs you, He aIso viII bring il lo ass."
II Thess. 3:13 - "do nol grov veary of doing good." Whal is lo veary
us if ve recognize lhal il is nol our slruggIing and slriving lo erform
goodness` Il is ossibIe lo grov veary of lhe facl lhal so fev seem lo
recognize and areciale lhal il is God's goodness exressed in our
behavior.
As Chrislians ve are lo conlinue lo be avaiIabIe and recelive in failh
lo lhe exression of God's goodness in our behavior. "He vho began a
good vork in you, viII erfecl il unliI lhe day of Chrisl }esus" (IhiI.
1:6). The "good vork" lhal God inlends viII nol be erfecled by our
conforming lo a "slandard of goodness," nor by our generaling, manu-
facluring, muslering u good behavior (vere ve abIe lo do so), bul
;,
onIy by lhe dynamic of divine grace, and our recelivily of lhal acliv-
ily in failh.
}esus aIIovs us lhe freedom lo exress His goodness in our behavior.
Such exression is nol forced uon lhe Chrislian. As Chrislians ve sliII
have freedom of choice. We are sliII choosing crealures. Iven lhough
Ih. 2:10 slales lhal "ve are crealed in Chrisl }esus for good vorks,
vhich God reared beforehand lhal ve shouId vaIk in lhem," lhis
does nol necessariIy imIy lhal aII our behavioraI exressions are re-
delermined in a rigid, cIosed-syslem, lhus denying freedom of choice.
In }esus Chrisl ve have freedom unlo lhe inlended funclion of our
humanily. We are free lo be and do aII lhal God vanls lo be and do in
us. The inlenlion of lhe Crealor God vas lo dveII vilhin, and aclivale
His characler of goodness lhrough lhe crealure man. y lhe faII of
mankind inlo sin and lheir siriluaI ensIavemenl lo lhe IviI One (II
Tim. 2:26) lhey became "sIaves of sin" and lo lhe exression of his
characler of eviI. In }esus Chrisl ve are reslored lo God's inlenl by
God's indveIIing and God's dynamic aclivily in us. Iree lo be man as
God inlended man lo be, by lhe resence and over of }esus Chrisl in
us. Ireedom is a mosl imorlanl concel of Chrislianily. }esus said,
"You shaII knov lhe Trulh, and lhe Trulh shaII sel you free" (}ohn
8:32), and lhen, "If lherefore lhe Son shaII make you free, you shaII be
free indeed" (}ohn 8:36). IauI exIained, "Il vas for freedom lhal Chrisl
sel us free...do nol be sub|ecl again lo a yoke of sIavery" (GaI. 5:1), "You
vere caIIed lo freedom, brelhren" (GaI. 5:13). "Where lhe siril of lhe
Lord is, lhere is Iiberly" (II Cor. 3:17). We are free lo be good as God
inlended man lo be. Iree lo Iove God and aIIov His goodness lo be
exressed lhrough us for olhers. Whal freedom! Augusline exIained
lhal ve can "Iove God and do vhal ve vanl."
The reIigionisl onIy underslands freedom as freedom jrcn somelhing
ralher lhan freedom ic God's inlenl. He seems onIy lo conceive of free-
dom in lhe conlexl of Iav, ralher lhan freedom of funclion. So lhere is
nolhing lhal frighlens lhe reIigionisl or moraIisl more lhan freedom
from lhe IegaI slandards of good behavior lhal have been osiled in
;
Iace of God. They reason, "If man is free from lhe Iav, free from
moraI codes, free from lhe reIigious maniuIalion lhereof, lhere is no
leIIing vhal man mighl do. Il vouId be chaos!" Il is lhereby reveaIed
lhal lhey have nol laken God inlo accounl, lhey onIy undersland
"goodness" in lhe idoIalrous conlexl of conformily lo behavioraI Iav
codes.
When lhe aoslIe IauI shared lhe goseI of grace, lhe freedom lhal
ve have in }esus Chrisl, lhe reIigious crilics, lhe }udaizers, indicaled
lhal he vas advocaling anlinomianism, lhal he vas leaching "againsl
lhe Iav," lhal he vas encouraging IavIessness, Iicenliousness, Iiberlin-
ism. IauI vrole in Rom. 6:15, "ShaII ve sin because ve are nol under
lhe Iav bul under grace` May il never be!" (cf. Rom. 3:5,8, 6:1). Iree-
dom lo sin is a lolaI misunderslanding of grace and freedom.
Ireedom in Chrisl is indeed on lhe far side of moraIislic IegaIism.
Irom lhe confined and faIse erseclive of IegaIism such freedom viII
aear lo be IavIessness, vioIalions of reguIalory behavioraI Iav and
moraI slandards of goodness. ul lhe Lav of God has as ils rimary
funclion lhe reveIalion of lhe characler of God, and grace is lhe divine
dynamic lo exress lhal characler of God freeIy in lhe Chrislian.
}esus Chrisl vanls lo exress His characler of goodness in consislenl,
raclicaI Chrislian behavior. The message of lhe Chrislian goseI is nol
|usl elhereaI lheory aboul abslracl "goodness," or hiIosohizing and
lheoIogizing aboul "goodness." We do nol vanl lo be so heavenIy-
minded lhal ve are of no earlhIy good. Chrislian Iiving has lo do vilh
raclicaI behavior vhich consislenlIy exresses lhe characler of God.
Chrislian Iiving has lo do vilh lhe raclicaIilies of God's goodness be-
ing exressed in aII of our inlerersonaI reIalionshis, husbands and
vives, arenls and chiIdren, emIoyers and emIoyees, friends, ac-
quainlances and generaI ubIic.
IauI varns us "do nol lurn your freedom inlo an oorlunily for lhe
fIesh" (GaI. 5:13). There have been Iiberlarian advocales vho have so
reacled lo moraIism, as lo eschev and reudiale aII behavioraI consid-
eralions and reaching. They are viIIing lo loIerale any behavior in lhe
;;
name of "freedom." We are seeing an eidemic of such loIerance in our
sociely loday. Il may be a vaIid backIash againsl moraIism, bul il Ieads
lo sociaI chaos aarl from lhe recognilion of God's grace-exression of
goodness.
Sin is sliII sin! Il is nol derived from God. Il does nol exress lhe
characler of God. Il is inslead derived from lhe deviI (I }ohn 3:8) and
exresses lhe characler of lhe IviI One.
Whenever lhe Chrislian misreresenls lhe characler of God in his/her
behavior by infideIily, dishonesly, greed, slrife, |eaIousy, anger, dis-
sensions, drunkeness, elc. lhen lhe inlenl of God lo exress His charac-
ler in lhal Chrislian is nol laking Iace. Il is a lragic misreresenlalion
of lhe Iife of }esus Chrisl.
As ve aIIov lhe Chrisl-Iife lo be Iived oul in our behavior, manifesl-
ing God's goodness by His grace, ve converseIy disaIIov lhe "fIeshIy
induIgences" (CoI. 2:23), vhich reIigious moraIism vas imolenl lo
deaI vilh. We disaIIov fIeshIiness lo be seIfishIy, sinfuIIy and salani-
caIIy exressed in our behavior. Thus il is lhal ve "deny ourseIves"
(Luke 9:23) and "abslain from every form of eviI" (I Thess 5:22). As ve
aIIov Chrisl lo manifesl His good-Iife in our behavior, He lhus suer-
sedes, overcomes and disaIIovs lhe misreresenlalive sinfuI behavior
exressions. The osilive svaIIovs u lhe negalive.
}esus Chrisl vanls lo exress His characler of goodness in lhe sociaI
communily of lhe Church. The Church is lhe "ody of Chrisl" inlended
lo coIIecliveIy exress lhe characler of Chrisl. The Church is lhe "Ieo-
Ie of God" exressing lhe characler of God's goodness. IauI vriles,
"Lel us do good lo aII men, and eseciaIIy lo lhose vho are of lhe
househoId of failh" (GaI. 6:10). There is arlicuIar emhasis on God's
goodness being exressed in lhe conlexl of lhe Church, for il is lhere
lhal God vanls lo demonslrale lhe inlerersonaI sociaI communily
lhal He inlended for man as lhey aIIov lhe Crealor lo funclion vilhin
His crealures. In lhe Church God vanls lo shov lhal man can dveII
logelher vilh man in "eace," vhen lhey aIIov God's goodness lo be
exressed one lo anolher. The Church is lo be lhe one Iace lhal dem-
;8
onslrales hov God's eoIe can gel aIong vilh one anolher in good-
ness vhen each erson is recelive lo God's Iove and goodness being
exressed lo lhe olher, desile diversily of race, sex, age, nalionaIily,
inleIIigence, ersonaIily lye, difference of oinions, elc.
The dislinclive of Chrislianily and Chrislian behavior is lhe avare-
ness lhal aII goodness is derived from God in ersonaI reIalionshi
vilh }esus Chrisl, and lhal aII goodness is behavioraIIy exressed by
lhe dynamic of God's grace aIone, vhich is lhe oul-vorking of Chrisl's
Iife. The God vho is good is lhe aclualor vho aclivales lhe exression
of His good characler and enacls (in-acls) His good characler in Chris-
lian behavior. God in Chrisl enabIes, emovers, energizes and enacls
aII good behavior, aII Chrislian behavior.
ehavioraI goodness is a fruil of lhe Siril of Chrisl. "The fruil of lhe
Siril is Iove, |oy, eace, alience, kindness, goodness..."(GaI. 5:22,23).
"The fruil of lhe Lighl consisls in aII goodness..."(Ih. 5:9). "We vaIk in
a manner vorlhy of lhe Lord, lo Iease Him in aII resecls, bearing
fruil in every good vork..."(CoI. 1:10). Il is nol lhal ve roduce or
manufaclure goodness or erform goodness, bul ve bear lhe fruil of
goodness derived from lhe dynamic of God's divine characler. }esus
says, "I am lhe vine, you are lhe branches, he vho abides in Me and I
in him, he bears much fruil, for aarl from Me you can do nolhing"
(}ohn 15:5).
Our focus musl be on lhe divine source of aII goodness. Our focus
musl be on }esus Chrisl. "We fix our eyes on }esus" (Heb. 12:2). Our
lheoIogy, our Iives, musl be Chrislocenlric, nol moraIily-cenlered, nol
even good-cenlered, bul God-cenlered, Chrisl-cenlered. Relurning lo
lhe quolalion of C.S. Levis,
"Chrislianily Ieads you on, oul of moraIily, inlo somelhing beyond.
One has a gIimse of a counlry vhere lhey do nol laIk of lhose lhings,
excel erhas as a |oke. Ivery one lhere is fiIIed fuII vilh vhal ve
shaII caII goodness as a mirror is fiIIed vilh Iighl. ul lhey do nol caII il
goodness. They do nol caII il anylhing. They are nol lhinking of il.
They are loo busy Iooking al lhe source from vhich il comes."
18

;
The dislinclive of Chrislianily and Chrislian behavior is lhal Chris-
lians are Iooking onIy al lhe source of aII lhings in Chrisl and deriving
aII from Him by lhe dynamic of His grace.
An Histnrica! 5urvcy nI thc Fai!urc tn DiIIcrcntiatc Christian Bchav-
inr and Mnra!ity
eginning al lhe beginning of aII hislory, ve recaII again lhe inlenl of
God in His crealion, vhich vas lo be lhe conslanlIy crealive dynamic
vilhin His crealure, man, in order lo manifesl His divine characler by
His divine grace unlo His ovn gIory. "We vere crealed for His gIory"
(Isa. 43:7). Il lakes God in a man for man lo be man as God inlended
man lo be. y man's recelivily lo God's Iife in lhe "lree of Iife," God's
goodness vouId have been exressed in man's behavior, lhe characler
of lhe invisibIe God made visibIe, imaged in man.
In lhe faII of man inlo sin, Adam re|ecled lhal derivalive reIalionshi
of grace/failh, and chose inslead lhe deceiving Iie lhal he couId be "Iike
God," an indeendenl, aulonomous seIf, and deveIo for himseIf a
seIf-delermined slandard of "good and eviI." Such vas lhe eslabIish-
menl of humanism, moraIily and reIigion. Iver since lhe IaII man has
had lo exercise lhe righl he demanded, and has had lo devise and de-
veIo reIigion in order lo fabricale a moraIily vherevilh lo slabiIize
lhe chaos of his sociely and lry lo drav man's allenlion avay from
himseIf, if even lemorariIy, for lhe good of lhe vhoIe. "MoraIily is of
lhe order of lhe faII."
19

Afler lhe IaII, ve observe in lhe hisloricaI narralives of lhe OId Tes-
lamenl lhal God begins lo ainl reIiminary "iclures" of hov He viII
remedy man's redicamenl and reslore HimseIf lo man. God icked
lhe }evs lo be His "iclure" eoIe. He gave lhem lhe Lav, incIusive of
lhe Ten Commandmenls, on Ml. Sinai. }udaism vas a reIigion, com-
Iele vilh moraIily, as aII reIigion is. God eslabIished lhe reIigion of
}udaism lo demonslrale lhe bankruly of aII reIigion, and lhe inabiIily
of man lo kee any moraIily, i.e. lo shov man lhal he did nol have
vhal il look lo be man as God inlended.
8o
Whal aboul lhe OId Teslamenl Lav` Does il have any reference lo
Chrislian behavior` The Lav had more lhan one urose, and lhe faiI-
ure lo undersland lhis viII Iead lo many inlerrelive robIems. (1) The
essenliaI urose of lhe Lav vas lhe reveIalion of lhe characler of
God. God is singuIar, ersonaI, excIusive, vorlhy of vorshi. God is
failhfuI, lrue, needs nolhing, elc. (2) The inslrumenlaI urose of lhe
Lav vas lo rovide a means vilh vhich lo reveaI lhe imolence of
moraIily and lo evidence lhe inabiIily of naluraI, faIIen, sinfuI man lo
exress lhe characler of God, lhe urose for vhich he vas crealed.
Afler he became a Chrislian, IauI couId sliII say, "The Lav is good,
hoIy, righleous" (Rom. 7:12,13). As ve have noled lhal onIy "God is
good," il is safe lo say lhal IauI did nol mean lhal lhe "Lav is good" in
lhe same sense lhal "God is good," for he vouId never have idoIa-
lrousIy equaled lhe Lav vilh God. Ralher, lhe Lav is beneficiaIIy
good, lhe Iav serves lhe good urose of God, rimariIy lo reveaI
God's characler. IauI makes il very cIear eIsevhere lhal lhe Lav does
nol make anyone good or righleous. "IsraeI, ursuing a Iav of righl-
eousness, did nol arrive al lhal Iav...because lhey did nol ursue il by
failh" (Rom. 9:31). "...nol knoving aboul God's righleousness, and
seeking lo eslabIish lheir ovn, lhey did nol sub|ecl lhemseIves lo lhe
righleousness of God" (Rom. 10:3). "Man is nol made righleous by lhe
vorks of lhe Lav.." (GaI. 2:16). IauI denies lhal lhe lhe Lav, funclion-
aIIy and reIigiousIy emIoyed as a moraIily, couId ever effecl God's
inlenl lo exress His goodness and righleousness and hoIiness in
man's behavior. The "Ieller kiIIs" IauI vrole (II Cor. 3:6). Hovever, lhe
rabbinic moraIisls of lhe }evish reIigion conlinued lo carefuIIy crafl
definilions of recise erformance for every evenluaIily in lhe IegaIis-
lic minulia of lhe TaImudic Mishnah. }udeo-Chrislian reIigion loday
sliII caIcuIales lhe moraIislic reguIalory urose of lhe Lav.
Oulside of lhe Hebrev conlexl, lhe hiIosohers of lhe vorId al-
lemled lo deveIo and diclale moraIilies for mankind. The orienlaI
hiIosohers such as uddha, Lao Tzu and Confucius, as veII as lhe
Greek hiIosohers such as Socrales, IIalo and ArislolIe, engaged in
lhis rocess. AII of lhem, in lheir ovn vay, allemled lo cIassify mor-
8s
aIislic virlues in seIf-delermined calegories of good and eviI, faiIing lo
undersland lhe divine inlenl of man's deriving aII characler exression
from God.
"In lhe fuIIness of lime God senl forlh His Son" (GaI. 4:4), incarnaled
as a man in order lo lake lhe dealh consequences of mankind uon
HimseIf, and lhal in order lo reslore lhe Iife of God lo man, so lhal
man couId funclion as God inlended. The dealh of }esus Chrisl on lhe
cross vas lhe vindicalion of aII goodness and grace over sin and dealh.
The resurreclion of }esus vas lhe manifeslalion of lhe avaiIabiIily of aII
goodness and grace in lhe dynamic of lhe Iife of lhe risen Lord }esus.
The "good nevs" of lhe goseI is lhal in }esus Chrisl ve have lhe reslo-
ralion of God's resence and funclion in man vhich vas Iosl in lhe faII.
The divine dynamic is reslored lo man so lhal aII mighl be derived
from God, lhe Siril of Chrisl Iiving and funclioning in lhe Chrislian.
The grace and freedom made avaiIabIe in }esus Chrisl is a radicaI
conlradiclion lo aII IegaIislic moraIily, lo aII reIigion! Mosl of lhe Nev
Teslamenl is an exose of reIigion, an exIanalion of lhe dicholomous
difference of Chrislianily from aII reIigion, eseciaIIy from lhe reIigion
of }udaism. Throughoul lhe goseIs }esus exoses and disoses lhe
Iharisees. His arabIes are oignanl icloriaI arodies of lhe reIigious
remises and raclices of IharisaicaI }udaism. The book of Acls is an
hisloricaI narralive of nascenl Chrislianily breaking free from lhe reIig-
ion of }udaism. IauI's Ieller lo lhe Romans exIains lhal righleousness
is nol in reIigion, bul onIy in Chrisl. The Ieller lo lhe GaIalians exIains
lhe dicholomy of lhe goseI and reIigion. The Ieller lo lhe Hebrevs
exIains lhal lhe nev covenanl in Chrisl forever obsoIeles and abro-
gales lhe oId covenanl of }evish reIigion. So vilh every olher book of
lhe Nev Teslamenl.
The grace of God oeralive in lhe Chrislian, lhe freedom lo be and
do aII God vanls lo be and do in us, lhese are oosed lo "Iav" and
"vorks." The moraIislic reguIalory funclion of lhe Lav is forever dissi-
aled, deslroyed, disensed vilh, discarded, damned!
8z
Desile lhis gIoriousIy Iiberaling reaIily of lhe Chrislian goseI, lhe
naluraI, reIigious man does nol Iike "grace" and "freedom," il lakes
avay aII his "conlroI." So even vilhin lhe conlexl of lhe firsl cenlury,
lhe reaclion of lhe reIigionisls, lhe moraIisls, is recorded in lhe Nev
Teslamenl ilseIf. The }udaizers seemed lo foIIov IauI vherever he
venl, allemling lo imose reIigious moraIily on lhe nev Chrislians,
allemling lo suIemenl lhe goseI of grace vilh exlernaI moraIily
slriclures. They vanled lo kee a IegaIislic Iav-based moraIily, lhe
very lhing }esus had come lo ul an end lo by His grace! IauI vouId
have none of il. He indicaled lhal vhal lhey vere leaching vas "an-
olher goseI" vhich vas "nol goseI al aII." Il vas damnabIe! (GaI. 1:6-
10).
Wilhin lhe second and lhird cenluries A.D. ve Iook back lo lhe vril-
ings of lhe earIy Church falhers, aIso caIIed lhe AosloIic Ialhers, lhe
earIiesl exlanl vrilings of Chrislians afler lhe Nev Teslamenl vrilings.
We search lheir vrilings lo delermine vhal erseclive lhey had of lhe
goseI of grace, and lhe freedom of lhe Chrislian "in Chrisl." Did lhey
relain IauI's underslanding of lhe dynamic of Chrisl's Iife funclioning
in lhe Chrislian` RegrellabIy, lhey did nol! Their rimary concern
seems lo have been moraIislic conformily, emhasizing exlernaI con-
ducl ralher lhan lhe inlernaI siriluaI dynamic of God's grace. T.I.
Torrance reorls,
"Whal occuied lhe foreground of lheir (AosloIic falhers) lhoughl
vas hov lhey vere going lo vaIk in lhe vay of lhis Iife, and conform
lo ils high slandards. So concerned vere lhey aboul righl and vrong
behaviour lhal everyvhere lhey vere driven inlo IegaIism and formaI-
ism. The Chrislian elhic vas codified, and lhe charismalic Iife under
lhe conslraining Iove of Chrisl reduced lo ruIes and recels. Lav and
obedience, revard and unishmenl, lhese vere lhe lhemes of lheir
reaching. The cenlre of gravily vas shifled from lhe mainsring of
lhe Chrislian Iife in lhe erson of Chrisl HimseIf lo lhe erihery of
oulvard conformily and daiIy behaviour."
20

8;
y lhe second and lhird cenluries lhere vas deveIoing a "Chrislian
reIigion" conlrary lo lhe Chrislian goseI. Many of lhe advocales of
earIy Chrislian moraIily syslems vere IabeIed as "herelics" lheir mo-
raIily emhases vere arl of serious lheoIogicaI errors lhal vere con-
demned. They vere lrying lo inlegrale Greek hiIosohy and Gnosli-
cism vilh lhe goseI. They vere advocaling moraIislic ascelicism as
lhe anlidole for "fIeshIy induIgence." Il does nol vork! (CoI. 2:23)
IarIy in lhe fourlh cenlury, by aboul 325 A.D., lhe church became in-
legraled vilh lhe slale, as Conslanline decIared Chrislianily lhe slale
reIigion of lhe Roman emire. The inslilulionaIizing of lhe Church re-
quired increased moraI definilion in order lo "conlroI" lhe "sociely."
Aulhorilarianism, even lolaIilarianism, resuIled as lhe hierarchiaI
Ieaders, Ialer seaking vilh lhe aIIeged infaIIibiIily of aaI decree, de-
lermined lhe absoIulism of moraI formuIalions. MoraI formuIalions
are nol absoIule. God is absoIule! Whal God is, onIy God is. We musl
nol allribule an allribule of God lo anylhing eIse. We musl resecl lhe
non-lransferrabiIily of lhe divine allribules There are no dislincl and
definabIe moraI absoIules aarl from God in }esus Chrisl, and deriving
lhe exression of His absoIule characler.
Dovn lhrough lhe cenluries lhal foIIoved, lhe Chrislian reIigion vas
characlerized by eccIesiaslicaI conlroI over moraIily. As ve noled in
lhe beginning, lhal is hov Chrislian reIigion, aIong vilh aII reIigion,
has come lo be defined.
The Reformalion of lhe sixleenlh cenlury simIy re-formed lhe mor-
aIism, aIong vilh some lheoIogicaI formuIalions. The moraIizing rigid-
ily of }ohn CaIvin, lhe Sviss reformer, is an examIe of lhe faiIure of
lhe reformers lo gras lhe dynamic resloralion of God's grace in lhe
Iiving Lord }esus.
So vhal has haened dovn lhrough lhe cenluries as lhe inslilu-
lionaI church reIaled lo lhe vorId` Hov did Chrislian reIigion alleml
lo foisl ils sociaI moraIism uon sociely around il` }acques IIIuI noles
hov lhe church engaged in lhe
8
"erversion of making lhe goseI inlo Iav in order lo resond lo lhe
chaIIenge of successive oulbursls of immoraIily and elhicaI disorder.
NaluraIIy Chrislians and lhe church couId nol faiI lo reacl lo vioIence
and sexuaIily and corrulion. The mislake vas lo deaI vilh lhese on
lhe moraI and IegaI Iane inslead of foIIoving lhe examIe of IauI,
vho aIvays vorks lhrough lhe moraI queslion lo lhe siriluaI ques-
lion, gels back lo lhe essence of lhe reveIalion in Chrisl, and from lhis
derives some modeIs of conducl lhal are consislenl vilh failh and Iove.
The church did nol do lhis. Il sel ilseIf on lhe same IeveI as lhe vorId
and lrealed moraI mallers on lhe moraI Iane. When a oIilicaI ques-
lion is lrealed mereIy as a oIilicaI queslion, and a sociaI queslion
mereIy as a sociaI queslion...lhe goseI becomes moraIily vilh a
vhilevash of lheoIogicaI lerms."
21

Conlemorary issues vhere lhis same rocess conlinues lo haen
mighl incIude civiI righls, aborlion, eulhanasia, elc.
The resenl silualion in Chrislian eccIesiaslicism is bul a erelua-
lion of lhe ignorance and defianl indeendence lhal faiIs lo differenli-
ale belveen Chrislian behavior and moraIily. There is an aImosl
vhoIesaIe faiIure lo recognize lhe radicaI nevness of nev covenanl
Chrislianily and lhe dynamic of lhe Iife of }esus Chrisl. Inslead, reIig-
ion reverls back lo oId covenanl IegaIism and moraIism. ReealedIy
reIigion vanls lo conslrucl a so-caIIed "Chrislian Ilhic" on lhe reguIa-
lory concel of lhe Ten Commandmenls. Whal an absurdily! Whal an
abominabIe misreresenlalion of Chrislianily! Whal an idoIalrous sub-
slilulion of Iav and moraI code for grace, of formuIa and lechnique for
freedom, of rinciIes of goodness for God.
Chrislianily, Chrislian Iiving, is lhe Iife of }esus Chrisl Iived oul
lhrough us. Such is anlilhelicaI lo aII moraIily. To lhe exlenl lhal ve
accel, advocale or observe moraIily, and lry lo Iive and "be good"
based on recels or rinciIes, ruIes or reguIalions, Chrislian Iiving is
excIuded, lhe Chrisl-Iife is nol being exressed, as lhey are muluaIIy
incomalibIe and excIusive. This is lhe oinl IauI makes lo lhe GaIa-
lians: "I died lo lhe Lav (lo moraIily), lhal I mighl Iive lo God" (GaI.
8,
2:19). "I do nol nuIIify lhe grace of God, for if righleousness (goodness)
comes lhrough lhe Lav (lhrough moraIily), lhen Chrisl died need-
IessIy" (GaI. 2:21). If you reverl back lo moraI suIemenls, "Chrisl viII
be of no benefil lo you," ...you have been severed from Chrisl..., you
have faIIen from grace" (GaI. 5:2-4), "lhe slumbIingbIock of lhe cross
has been aboIished" (GaI. 5:11). This is no sIighl maller! The issue al
hand is lhe essence of lhe goseI!
Chrislianily is nol moraIily! Chrislianily is Chrisl!

FOOTNOTE5
1 IIIuI, }acques, Tc Wi|| an! Tc Oc. IhiIadeIhia: IiIgrim Ir. 1969. g. 201.
2 IIIuI, }acques, Tnc Su|tcrsicn cj Cnrisiianiiq. Grand Raids: Ierdmans Iub. 1986. g.
69.
3 Levis, C.S., Mcrc Cnrisiianiiq. Nev York: MacmiIIan Iub. 1952. g. 130.
4 IIIuI, }acques, Tc Wi|| an! Tc Oc. g. 30.
5 Thomas, W. Ian, Tnc Mqsicrq cj Gc!|incss. Grand Raids: Zondervan. 1964. g. 50.
6 Levis, C.S., Mcrc Cnrisiianiiq. g. 130.
7 Slevarl, }ames S., A Man in Cnrisi. Nev York: Harer & rolhers. n.d., g. 168.
8 Lake, Irank, C|inica| Tncc|cgq. Nev York: Crossroad. 1986. g. 168.
9 IIIuI, }acques, Tnc |inics cj |rcc!cn. Grand Raids: Ierdmans. 1976. g. 239.
10 Thomas, W. Ian, Tnc Mqsicrq cj Gc!|incss. g. 43.
20 Torrance, Thomas I., Tnc Occirinc cj Gracc in inc Apcsic|ic |aincrs. Idinburgh: OIiver
and oyd. 1948. g. 139.
21 IIIuI, }acques, Tnc Su|tcrsicn cj Cnrisiianiiq. g. 89.

8
4 Chrislianily is Nol a eIief-Syslem

A!!nw mc tn rctc!! lhe slory of Gualama uddha vho Iived some four
hundred years rior lo lhe birlh of }esus Chrisl. He vas dying. Some of
his devolees came lo uddha and asked hov lhey shouId ereluale
his memory. "Hov shouId ve share vilh lhe vorId lhe remembrance
of you` Hov shaII ve memoriaIize you`" uddha resonded, "Don'l
bolher! Il is nol me lhal mallers, il is my leaching lhal shouId be
roagaled and adhered lo lhroughoul lhe vorId."
Does lhal seem seIf-effacing a nobIe ideaI lo avoid ego-cenlricily`
"Don'l focus on me, |usl remember my leaching."
If }esus Chrisl had said somelhing Iike lhal, il vouId cerlainIy Iegili-
mize vhal ve see aII around us in so-caIIed "Chrislian reIigion" loday.
Ior "Chrislian reIigion" is lhe roagalion of various underslandings
of }esus' leaching as delermined by various inlerrelalions of lhe ibIe.
Irom vhal ve observe in "Chrislian reIigion" loday, il vouId aear
lhal mosl vho caII lhemseIves "Chrislians" musl lhink lhal }esus advo-
caled lhe same lhing lhal uddha is aIIeged lo have ullered.
}esus Chrisl did nol say anylhing Iike lhal! In facl, vhal uddha said
is conlrary lo everylhing }esus laughl, and everylhing recorded in lhe
Nev Teslamenl Scrilures. }esus did nol say, "}usl remember My
leaching." }esus said, "I AM lhe vay, lhe lrulh and lhe Iife." (}ohn 14:6)
"I AM lhe resurreclion and lhe Iife." (}ohn 11:25). }esus HimseIf, lhe
very Ierson and Life of }esus Chrisl, is lhe essence of everylhing He
came lo bring lo lhis vorId. Chrislianily is Chrisl!
Chrislianily is nol |usl anolher reIigion roagaling an ideoIogy.
Chrislianily is nol |usl anolher reIigion remembering lhe leaching of ils
CHRISTIANITY IS NOT A BELIEF SYSTEM
8;
founder. Chrislianily is nol |usl anolher reIigion reileraling lhe ro-
osilionaI lenels of ils founder's leaching, and caIIing such "lrulh."
Chrislianily is nol |usl anolher reIigion demanding conformily lo a
arlicuIar "beIief-syslem" or dala-base of doclrine.
The essence of Chrislianily is }esus Chrisl. AII of Chrislianily is in-
herenl in }esus, His Ierson and His conlinuing aclivily. Chrislianily
funclions onIy by lhe dynamic of lhe risen and Iiving Lord }esus.
Chrislianily is lhe funclion of lhe Siril of Chrisl as He conlinues lo
Iive in Chrislians.
Il is a sad slale of affairs in vhal is assed off as "Chrislian reIigion"
loday. There is aImosl lolaI faiIure lo discern lhal lhe essence of Chris-
lianily is }esus Chrisl HimseIf. The essence of Chrislianily is nol a
slandardized beIief-syslem. The essence of Chrislianily is nol a consen-
sus of doclrine. The essence of Chrislianily is nol commonaIily of
creeds. }esus Chrisl is lhe essence of Chrislianily.
Where did "Chrislian reIigion" go off lrack inlo lhinking lhal consenl-
ing lo, confessing and conforming lo doclrinaI dala vas vhal Chrisli-
anily vas aII aboul` When did lhis "Chrislian reIigion" deveIo lhe
idea lhal Chrislianily is lhe accelance of a correcl and orlhodox beIief-
syslem`
Chrislians loday seem lo be abysmaIIy ignoranl of church hislory. A
quick reviev of church hislory viII assisl in ansvering lhe queslions
|usl asked:
}esus did nol come lo bring nev informalion aboul God, aboul saIva-
lion, aboul Iove, aboul elernaI Iife. Chrisl came lo be Life lo aII man-
kind. He came as God, as saIvalion, as Iove. He came lo reslore man-
kind lo vhal God inlended in crealion, and lhal by funclioning as God
in man, lhe siriluaI dynamic of Iife.
The redemlive mission lo make His Iife avaiIabIe look Iace, his-
loricaIIy, in a vorId lhal vas dominaled by }evish and Greek lhinking.
The }evs vanled lo ul everylhing inlo lhe conlexl of an organized re-
88
Iigion vilh ruIes and reguIalions. The Greeks vere infIuenced by IIalo
and ArislolIe, and lheir abslracl hiIosohicaI mind-sel of melahysics
and IogicaI allerns of lhoughl.
So desile lhe cIarily of }esus' leaching, and lhe cIear and simIe re-
cord of lhe goseI dynamic of lhe Iife of }esus Chrisl in lhe vrilings of
Scrilure by IauI, Ieler, }ohn, elc., lhese soon began lo be inlerreled
in lhe conlexls of reIigion and IogicaI comarlmenlaIizalion of human
lhoughl. The so-caIIed "church falhers" of lhe firsl fev cenluries of
Chrislianily had aIready reduced Chrislianily inlo moraIislic and elhi-
caI reIigious ruIes and inlo creedaIislic concels of correcl conlenl of
lhoughl. They so quickIy Iel go of lhe dynamic Iife of }esus Chrisl as
lhe essence of Chrislianily, and aIIoved il lo become mereIy a beIief-
syslem.
The Roman Imeror, Conslanline, soIidified lhis slalic concel of
Chrislianily even more in lhe earIy arl of lhe fourlh cenlury. Conslan-
line vanled lo unify everylhing governmenl, economics, reIigion,
"Chrislian lhoughl", elc. He organized lhe Nicene CounciI in 325 A.D.,
bringing logelher lhese hiIosohicaIIy-based lhinkers, lheoIogians, lo
deveIo a rigid exression of "Chrislian beIief." They comressed
"Chrislian lhoughl" inlo IogicaI roosilions of lrulh and orlhodoxy
and caIIed il lhe "Nicene Creed," lo vhich everyone vho vas caIIed
"Chrislian" vas lo give menlaI assenl, or be regarded as a herelic.
y 325 A.D. Chrislianily had been erverled inlo a formuIaled and
fixaled beIief syslem, demanding devolion lo ils doclrine. This rocess
vas rogressiveIy deveIoed in lhe inslilulionaIized Roman or Lalin
Church. T.I. Torrance refers lo lhis eislemoIogicaIIy based ralionaI-
ism as "lhe Lalin heresy."
1

Augusline Iived and vrole in lhe cenlury foIIoving lhe Nicene
CounciI. His Auguslinian lheoIogy, on vhich CaIvin Ialer based much
of his lheoIogy, vas exlremeIy ralionaIislic, fuII of IogicaI delerminism
vilh such ideas as slricl divine redeslinalion. KarI arlh referred lo
Auguslinian lheoIogy as "sveel oison,"
2
"sveel" because il emha-
8
sized lhe sovereignly of God, "oison" because il vas a syslem of Iogi-
caI and lheoIogicaI delerminism.
The Roman emire disinlegraled in aboul 500 A.D. The seven hun-
dred year eriod from 200 .C. lo 500 A.D. is knovn as lhe "CIassicaI
Ieriod" of Greek and Roman lhoughl allerns. The foIIoving five
hundred years, 500 A.D. lo 1000 A.D. are knovn as lhe Dark Ages or
MiddIe Ages. AII lhinking vas reIaled back slalicaIIy lo lhe CIassicaI
Ieriod. No nev lhinking vas encouraged or aIIoved Dark Ages in-
deed!
Thomas Aquinas aeared as lhe Renaissance Ieriod vas icking u
sleam, bul his Thomislic lheoIogy |usl Iaced "Chrislian lhoughl" in a
lighl schoIaslic slronghoId of lhe Roman Church. The Church vas re-
garded as lhe medialor of God's lhoughl. "eIieve as lhe Ioe and lhe
Church advocales, or face lhe consequences!" Many did!
During lhe Renaissance Ieriod lhe lhinking of "Chrislian reIigion"
|usl foIIoved aIong Iike a Ia-dog lo lhe hiIosohers and scienlisls of
lhal day (as il has lhroughoul mosl of ils hislory.) Rene Descarles in-
lroduced Carlesian doubl, "I lhink, lherefore I am." RalionaIislic beIief
vas lhe foremosl crileria for being. Sir Isaac Nevlon deveIoed ideas
of delerminislic causaIism, and lhese vere adaled inlo lheoIogy aIso.
In lhe sixleenlh cenlury lhe Reformalion exIoded vilh Marlin Lu-
lher, }ohn CaIvin, UIrich ZvingIi, and olhers. Il is caIIed lhe "Reforma-
lion" because il re-formed lhe reIigious slruclures lhal exisled in
"Chrislian reIigion" al lhal lime. ul lhe birlh of Iroleslanlism did nol
reslore lhe cenlraIily of lhe siriluaI dynamic of }esus Chrisl. "Chris-
lian reIigion" vas sliII regarded as essenliaIIy a "beIief-syslem," bul in-
slead of a singuIar formuIaled and fixaled beIief-syslem in lhe Roman
Church, il became muIliIe faclious and fraclious beIief-syslems com-
eling vilh one anolher and bealing on one anolher (bolh verbaIIy and
hysicaIIy.) Disagreeing on every minule oinl of lheoIogy conceiv-
abIe, lhey began lo divide and sub-divide inlo denominalionaIized be-
Iief-syslem organizalions, each beIieving lhal lhey had formuIaled and
fixaled lheir beIief-syslem in accord vilh God's lhinking. There vere
o
Lulherans, CaIvinisls, Anabalisls and many olhers, aII cIaiming lo
have lhe orlhodox beIief-syslem, aII cIaiming lo have figured-oul vhal
God, lhe "Greal TheoIogue," beIieves, and suosedIy demands lhal
aII His adherenls Iikevise beIieve.
ObviousIy lhere vas nol any recovery of lhe dynamic underslanding
of Chrislianily in lhe Iroleslanl Reformalion. Gene Idvards con-
cIudes, "The Reformalion vas neilher revivaI nor resloralion. The Ref-
ormalion vas an inleIIecluaI bravI."
3

In lhe nexl cenlury, in 1611 A.D., King }ames of IngIand aulhorized
vhal became knovn as lhe Aulhorized Version, beller knovn as lhe
King }ames Version, of an IngIish lransIalion of lhe ibIe. The "Chris-
lian reIigion" of lhal day vas sliII engaged in comeling beIief-
syslems.
King }ames hired lransIalors lo lransIale lhe ibIe inlo IngIish. The
vord for "leaching" in lhe IngIish Ianguage of King }ames' lime vas
"doclrine." The King }ames Version refers lo lhe vord "doclrine" 56 dif-
ferenl limes. ul Ianguages evoIve, and lhe meanings of vords change.
So il is vilh lhe vord "doclrine." Looking al a conlemorary IngIish
diclionary you viII discover lhal aIlhough "doclrine" used lo mean
"leaching" or "inslruclion," lhal definilion is nov regarded as "archaic"
or "obsoIele." Whal does lhe vord "doclrine" mean in conlemorary
IngIish` Wc|sicrs Cc||cgiaic Oiciicnarq reads: "Doclrine a rinciIe ac-
celed by a body of beIievers or adherenls lo a hiIosohy or schooI,
rinciIes of knovIedge or a syslem of beIief." "Doclrinaire diclaloriaI
or dogmalic." "Indoclrinale lo imbue vilh a arlisan or seclarian oin-
ion, oinl of viev or rinciIe." Synonyms used for "indoclrinale" in-
cIude "roagandize, rogram, brainvash, infecl, insliII, incuIcale,
elc." Is il any vonder lhal never IngIish lransIalions lend lo avoid lhe
vord "doclrine"` The Nev American Slandard ibIe, for examIe, uses
lhe vord "doclrine" onIy fourleen limes, and even lhose are robabIy a
carry-over of lhe lradilionaIism of eccIesiaslicaI lerminoIogy. The
Greek vords, !i!acnc and !i!aska|ia, shouId be consislenlIy lransIaled
s
"leaching," excel vhen reference is being made lo "man-made doc-
lrines" (Ih. 4:14, CoI. 2:22, elc.)
In conlemorary IngIish Ianguage "doclrine" has come lo mean "a
lradilionaI beIief-syslem as inlerreled and acceled by a arlicuIar
grou of eoIe." "Doclrinaire" means "lo dogmalicaIIy asserl a lradi-
lionaI beIief-syslem as inlerreled and acceled by a arlicuIar grou
of eoIe." "Indoclrinale" imIies "lo roagandize or brainvash olh-
ers vilh lhis lradilionaI beIief-syslem as inlerreled and acceled by a
arlicuIar grou of eoIe."
Such a definilion vas mosl cerlainIy nol vhal lhe hearers inlended
vhen lhey Iislened lo }esus and "vere aslonished al His doclrine"
(Luke 4:32 - K}V). They vere nol "aslonished al His lradilionaI beIief-
syslem," ralher lhey vere "amazed al His leaching" (NAS). The leach-
ing of }esus vas lhe exlending, lhe offering, lhe demonslralion of Him-
seIf His Life. His leaching vas Life-leaching. The elymoIogicaI rool for
lhe Greek vord "leaching" had lo do vilh "exlending lhe hand" or "of-
fering oneseIf." To demonslrale vhal is being laughl, lhal is lhe vay lo
leach Life!
The fundamenlaIism and evangeIicaIism lhal redominale in ou-
Iar "Chrislian reIigion" in America loday lend lo key in on "doclrine" as
beIief-syslem. Thal may be lhe reason lhey oflen refer lo relain lhe
King }ames Version, and inlerrel lhe use of lhe vord "doclrine"
lhroughoul lhe Nev Teslamenl as lheir arlicuIar brand of formuIaled
and fixaled beIief-syslem. These reIigious doclrinarians conlinue lo in-
doclrinale olhers and ereluale lhe faclious and fraclious denomina-
lionaIism of differing beIief-syslems. Americans, vilh lheir fierce indi-
viduaIism and concels of ersonaI freedom, have eIevaled denomina-
lionaIism lo an aII-lime high, a reaI "reIigious science", vilh lhousands
of reIigious denominalions, divided by disuled doclrinaI beIief-
syslems. Those invoIved in "Chrislian reIigion" loday sliII lhink lhal
Chrislianily is essenliaIIy consenl lo a arlicuIar doclrinaI beIief-
syslem.
z
This is, in facl, lhe definilion of "fundamenlaIism," a grouing of
eoIe vho has rigidIy delermined lhe "fundamenlaIs" of lheir accel-
abIe doclrinaI beIief-syslem. "IundamenlaIism" is a vord much used
loday. The nevsaers and nevs reorls are fuII of references lo
"MusIim fundamenlaIisls" in Iran, Libya, Lebanon, Igyl, elc., "Hindu
fundamenlaIisls" in Sri Lanka, "Chrislian fundamenlaIisls" barging al
and bombing aborlion cIinics in lhe Uniled Slales. Have you ever no-
liced lhal fundamenlaIisls aIvays fighl` Why is lhal` They feeI lhey
have an obIigalion lo defend lhe arlicuIar vay lhey have slacked aII
of lheir doclrinaI bIocks in lheir beIief-syslem.
The fundamenlaIisl "Chrislian reIigion" in generaI has aIIoved doc-
lrine, lheir beIief-syslem, lo become lhe sureme issue. "Doclrine" be-
comes lheir basis of feIIovshi, accelance, securily, bonding, elc. Il is
a lragic misreresenlalion of lhe Church vhen lhe basis of our com-
monaIily is caIcuIaled by doclrinaI agreemenl, ralher lhan lhe indveII-
ing Lord }esus Chrisl, vhen uniformily of doclrine is lhe rimary issue
inslead of unily in Chrisl. Hov sad vhen much of vhal is caIIed
"Chrislian reaching" is bul lirades againsl so-caIIed "herelics" vho do
nol slack lhe doclrinaI fundamenlaIs of lheir beIief-syslem |usl Iike ve
do!
Doclrine has been deified in "Chrislian reIigion" loday. Doclrine has
become lheir "god." Il is a gross form of idoIalry vhen one's roerIy-
aIigned slack of doclrinaI ideas is eIevaled and revered lo lhe exlenl
lhal il musl be defended al aII cosls, even lo lhe oinl of lerrorism,
even lo lhe oinl of dying for il.
God aIone is absoIule and immulabIe. His allribules are excIusive lo
HimseIf. Whal God is, onIy God is. To allribule God's allribules lo our
doclrine and delermine lhal our doclrine is absoIule and unchangeabIe
is lo deify doclrine, and lo engage in lhe absoIulism lhal is indicalive
of fundamenlaIislic reIigion around lhe vorId.
The Scollish reacher and leacher, }ames S. Slevarl, vrole lhese
vords: "Those vho have succeeded in defining doclrine mosl cIoseIy,
have Iosl Chrisl mosl comIeleIy."
4

;
Doclrines, beIief-syslems, viII aIvays be lhe focus of reIigion, bul nol
of Chrislianily. Chrislianily is Chrisl! }esus' leaching vas aboul Him-
seIf. He is lhe essence of Chrislian leaching, conlrary lo vhal uddha
said aboul his reIigion.
In Chrislianily, TRUTH is a Ierson, }esus Chrisl. "Trulh" is nol |usl
roosilionaI lrulh slalemenls vilhin a beIief-syslem of doclrinaI lhe-
oIogy by vhich orlhodoxy is ralionaIislicaIIy delermined. }esus Chrisl
is Trulh! }esus Chrisl is our Life! He is so excIusiveIy, lhere is no olher
Way! }ohn 14:6 - "I AM lhe vay, lhe lrulh and lhe Iife."
Chrislianily is nol a beIief-syslem. Chrislianily is Chrisl!

FOOTNOTE5
1 Torrance, T.I., Kar| Barin, Bi||ica| an! |tangc|ica| Tncc|cgian, age 215, Idinburgh: T & T
CIark, 1990
2 Torrance, T.I., ||i!. age 122.
3 Idvards, Gene, Cnurcn Uniiq...Hcu ic Gci Tncrc, age 99, Auburn: Chrislian ooks
IubIishing House, 1991.
4 Slevarl, }ames S., A Man in Cnrisi, Nev York: Harer and rolhers.

5 Chrislianily is Nol IislemoIogy

Havc ynu hcard of "lhe eislemoIogicaI heresy"` Though lhe lilIe may
be noveI, lhe heresy is nolhing nev. Il is |usl a nev lilIe on an oId
robIem. In facl, lhe "eislemoIogicaI heresy" may be lhe underIying
heresy of aII heresies, "lhe molher of aII heresies." This arlicuIar her-
esy is so sublIe and ervasive lhal mosl vho vouId caII lhemseIves
"Chrislians" have inadverlenlIy adaled lo ils herelicaI resuosi-
lions and are unabIe lo recognize lhe exlenl lo vhich lhey have
adoled ils remises. Mosl of Weslern Chrislian lheoIogy has been in-
fecled by lhe mind-sel of lhis heresy.
Throughoul lhe cenluries of Chrislian lhoughl lhere have been Chris-
lian lhinkers vho have honeslIy and siriluaIIy mainlained lhe dis-
lincliveness of lhe Chrislian message. Those oulside of lhe Chrislian
failh have oflen reacled lo lhe Chrislian resenlalion and rocIama-
lion, finding arlicuIarIy offensive lhe Iegilimale asserlions of excIu-
sivily concerning lhe singuIar reconciIialion of man vilh God lhrough
}esus Chrisl. As lhe Chrislian resenlalion is lyicaIIy argued, lhough,
lhe offense lo non-Chrislian inquirers may be quile vaIid. If lhe argu-
menl is simIy lhal my beIief-syslem is suerior lo your beIief-syslem
(and any olher beIief-syslem), lhen such an offensive (doubIe enlendre
inlended) aroach lo excIusivism is indeed omous and eIilisl.
When Chrislians roudIy asserl soIe cIaim lo absoIule informalion
and exacl underslanding of recise recels of moraI slandards, lhey
have sel lhemseIves u as gods on lheir ovn Iayground. When Chris-
lian resenlalion sloos lo lhe IeveI of mere aoIogelic reasoning and
argumenl concerning lenels of menlaI assenl, lhen lhe reIalivislic bal-
lIeground is bul a gory iclure of lhe bIind bealing oul lhe brains of
lhe bIind.
CHRISTIANITY IS NOT EPISTEMOLOGY
,
Ierhas lhe foregoing has given lhe reader a gIimse of vhal lhe
"eislemoIogicaI heresy" mighl enlaiI. Iurlher exIanalion viII firsl re-
quire cIoser definilion.
DcIining Tcrms
"IislemoIogy" is a hiIosohicaI lerm elymoIogicaIIy derived from
lhree Greek vords: (1) cpi meaning "uon" or "on." (2) nisicni meaning
"lo sland." (3) |cgcs meaning "vord," and indicaling "IogicaI considera-
lion of or sludy of." The Greek vord cpisianai referred lo lhe rocess of
acquiring knovIedge and underslanding, as veII as lhe significance of
such informalion. IislemoIogy refers lo lhe consideralions of vhal
ve sland uon for our underslanding. Hov do ve knov vhal ve
knov` Why do ve beIieve vhal ve beIieve` Where do ve lake our
sland concerning lhe oinions vhich ve cIaim lo beIieve and lo knov`
These are lhe consideralions of eislemoIogy.
The Nev Teslamenl conlains severaI usages of lhe Greek vord cpis-
ianai. A couIe of examIes shouId suffice lo documenl such.
In lhe "failh chaler" of Hebrevs 11, lhe vriler exIains lhal "by failh
Abraham, vhen he vas caIIed, obeyed by going oul..., nol knoving
(cpisiancncs) vhere he vas going" (Heb. 11:8). Abraham did nol have
lhe Iogislics, lhe chronoIogy, lhe ilinerary of his |ourney aII IogicaIIy
eslabIished. The delaiIs of his so|ourn vere nol eislemoIogicaIIy de-
lermined in human Iogic calegories, bul ralher he lrusled God in failh.
Wriling lo Timolhy, IauI indicales lhal "if anyone does nol agree
vilh...lhe leaching conforming lo godIiness, he is conceiled (uffed u)
and underslands (cpisiancncs) nolhing" (I Tim. 6:3,4). IauI's argumenl
seems lo be lhal lhe leaching of lhe Chrislian Iife is based on lhe failh-
derivalive of God's characler exressed in human behavior. To faiI lo
undersland and agree vilh lhis is lo "sland uon" insubslanliaI under-
slanding. AIlhough such a erson may have lheir eislemoIogicaI be-
Iief-syslem aII syslemalized and calegorized, lheoIogized and dogma-
lized, he lakes his "sland uon" somelhing olher lhan lhe dynamic
erson of }esus Chrisl.

AddilionaI Greek vords are used in lhe Nev Teslamenl lo refer lo
"knovIedge" and "underslanding," incIuding lhe vords ci!cc and gnc-
sis. To lhe Corinlhians IauI noles lhal "knovIedge (gncsis) makes arro-
ganl (uffs u), bul Iove edifies" (I Cor. 8:1). Laler in lhe same eislIe
he vriles, "if I knov (ci!c) aII mysleries and aII knovIedge
(gncsin)...bul do nol have Iove, I am nolhing" (I Cor. 13:2). Melahysi-
caI underslanding and inleIIecluaI underslanding acquired eislemo-
IogicaIIy are nol God's uIlimale ob|eclive for man. Ralher, God vanls
His characler of Iove lo be exressed behavioraIIy. IauI exIains lhal
his rayer for lhe Ihesians is lhal lhey mighl "knov (gncnai) lhe Iove
of God vhich surasses knovIedge (gncsccs)" (Ih. 3:19).
}esus indicled lhe }evish Iharisees by charging, "You search lhe
Scrilures, because you lhink lhal in lhem you have elernaI Iife, and il
is lhese lhal bear vilness of Me, and you are unviIIing lo come lo Me,
lhal you may have Iife" (}ohn 5:39,40). The vrillen slalemenls of fac-
luaI informalion aboul hislory and lheoIogy conlained in lhe ibIicaI
record and uon vhich reIigious eoIe lake lheir sland lo deveIo a
beIief-syslem and a doclrinaI osilion, conslilule onIy a foundalionaI
basis of eislemoIogicaI underslanding. }esus considered such lolaIIy
insufficienl as lhe basis for lhe divine reaIily lhal He vas making
avaiIabIe in HimseIf. He vas making His ovn divine being, His ovn
Iife, avaiIabIe for lhe resloralion of funclionaI mankind.
IislemoIogicaI underslanding is inadequale lo comrehend lhe di-
vine reaIily lhal is lhe essence of Chrislianily. The ob|eclive of lhe
Chrislian message is nol lo encourage eoIe lo receive and accumu-
Iale and assenl lo informalion, bul ralher lo receive lhe very eing of
God inlo lhemseIves (}ohn 1:12) and aIIov }esus Chrisl lo be lheir Iife
(CoI. 3:4).
The essence of Chrislianily is lo be idenlified as onloIogicaI ralher
lhan eislemoIogicaI. "OnloIogy" is elymoIogicaIIy derived from lvo
Greek vords: (1) cnics meaning "being." (2) |cgcs meaning "vord," and
indicaling "IogicaI consideralion of or sludy of." "OnloIogy" refers lo
lhe hiIosohicaI sludy of being. In ils broadesl usage "onloIogy" con-
;
siders lhe enlire issue of being and exislence in generaI. More secifi-
caIIy, ve are emIoying "onloIogy" as referring lo lhe divine eing of
lhe Crealor God, and His ersonaI reIalion lo His crealed beings, lhe
reIalion of lhe God-eing and human beings. The ersonaI eing of
God, lhe I AM (Ixod. 3:14), and His reIalionshi vilh human beings
musl be considered onloIogicaIIy ralher lhan mereIy eislemoIogicaIIy.
The knovIedge being considered is nol |usl lhe knovIedge of imer-
sonaI facluaI dala and informalion, bul lhe ersonaI knoving of er-
sonaI beings in ersonaI reIalionshi.
The urose of lhis sludy, lhen, is lo emhasize lhe onloIogicaI con-
sideralions vhich musl be foremosl in Chrislian reasoning. This is
never lo deny lhough lhal lhere is an eislemoIogicaIIy based under-
slanding lhal is foundalionaI lo Chrislianily. There are hisloricaIIy
daled evenls and lheoIogicaI inlerrelalions of lhose evenls lhal form
lhe foundalion for Chrislian underslanding. They are documenlabIe
and IogicaI. Chrislianily is nol |usl a sub|eclive, myslicaI exeriencing
of suernaluraI, melahysicaI being vilh exislenliaI significance. Such
is lhe faIse accusalion of secuIar eislemoIogicaI exlremisls. The o-
osing exlreme is lo cam vilh lhe reIigious eislemoIogisls vho viev
Chrislianily as bul an hisloricaI sociely for lhe remembrance of }esus'
birlh, Iife, dealh and resurreclion, or as bul a lheoIogicaI sociely for lhe
inlerrelalion of lhose evenls. To resenl Chrislianily vilh an excIu-
siveIy eislemoIogicaI emhasis is equaIIy exlremisl as resenling il as
excIusiveIy exislenliaI exerienliaIism. Avoiding lhe exlremes, ve
vanl lo undersland lhe onloIogicaI reaIily of Chrislianily, hov lhe
very eing of God, His Iife, His characler is resenl in lhe Chrislian by
lhe indveIIing siriluaI resence of lhe Siril of Chrisl, and hov He
desires lo Iive oul His Iife and exress His characler in our behavior.
An Histnrica! 5urvcy
The Crealor-God crealed lhe crealure-man in such a vay as lo en-
courage lhe free-fIov of lhe aclive exression of God's characler in lhe
behavior of man. The freedom for such funclion is symboIized by lhe
olion of lhe freeIy chosen "lree of Iife" (Gen. 2:9,16). In such a rece-
8
live failh-choice man vouId aIIov for lhe grace exression of God's
aclivily, lhus imaging God's characler in visibIe behavior. This onlo-
IogicaI fIov of divine eing exressed vilhin and lhrough humanily
vas lhe Crealor's inlenl, so as lo gIorify HimseIf vilhin His crealion
(Isa. 43:7, 48:11).
The faII of man inlo sin indicales lhe choice lhal mankind made coI-
IecliveIy "in Adam." Il vas a choice lo disaIIov lhe onlic fIov of divin-
ily exressed in humanily, lo sever lhal unique reIalionshi of Divine
eing exressed in lhe human being. Man vas divorced from lhe siri-
luaI unily of reIalionshi he had vilh God, sacrificing his siriluaI
idenlily, nalure, image, elc., vhich vere conlingenl on lhal reIalion-
shi. Inslead man chose lhe Iie of indeendenl delerminalion of righl,
good, lrulh, elc., vilh lhe faIIacious eislemoIogicaI underslanding
lhal he couId delermine from his ovn seIf-cenlered erseclive vhal is
lrue, good and righl.
The hislory of mankind is reIele vilh a confusion of oinions as
men have advocaled comeling ideoIogies lo alleml lo exIain lhem-
seIves and lheir universe. Their quesl for idenlily and meaning, for cer-
lainly and securily, are bul an ongoing enaclmenl of abeI vilh se-
manlic and inlerrelive diversilies a! injiniiun.
Greek hiIosohers in arlicuIar vere adel al arlicuIaling reasoned
exIanalions of universaI rinciIes. Socralic diaIeclicism, IIalonic du-
aIism, ArisloleIian ralionaIism aII indicale lhe eislemoIogicaI base of
lhe Greek hiIosohers vhich has had such a Iasling effecl on Weslern
lhoughl and reIigion.
"In lhe fuIIness of lime" (GaI. 4:4), }esus Chrisl, lhe God-man, vas
vesled inlo lhe hisloricaI silualion of mankind by lhe incarnalion. As
lhe "I AM" (Ixod. 3:14) eing of God, He reealedIy verbaIized such in
lhe ego eimi decIaralions (}ohn 6:35, 8:12,58, 10:9,11, 11:25, 14:6, 15:1).
He came as man lo lake lhe sin of man, lo vicariousIy bear lhe dealh
consequences of sin as man, in order lo reslore mankind vilh His di-
vine Iife, lhe resloralion of funclionaI humanily by lhe onloIogicaI
resence of lhe Siril of Chrisl vilhin lhe siril of man. This is lhe

grace dislinclive of Chrislianily vherein lhe radicaI uniqueness of lhe
divine aclion (saIvalion, |uslificalion, sanclificalion, elc.) is necessariIy
derived oul of, and is vilaI exression of, lhe divine eing in Chrisl.
The onloIogicaI conneclion and associalion of God and man is reslored
in Chrisl.
The exIanalion of lhis Iiving resence of God in man by lhe risen
Lord }esus vas nol a simIe maller since lhe originaI rocIamalion
vas sel in lhe conlexl of }evish reIigion. IislemoIogicaI mind-sel vas
rigidIy fixed in lheir Iav-based doclrinaIism and moraIism.
The Greek visdom of Gnoslicism vas aIso a formidabIe anlagonisl lo
nascenl Chrislian resenlalion. A duaIism of siril and maller aIong-
side of a duaIism of cause and effecl via siriluaI emanalions crealed a
seudo-baIance of eislemoIogicaI and exerienliaI underslanding.
Whereas lhe firsl cenlury oIarizalion vas rimariIy a breaking free
from idenlificalion vilh }evish reIigion, lhe concerns of lhe Chrislian
lhinkers in lhe second, lhird and fourlh cenluries vas rimariIy in re-
aclion lo Gnoslicism. Reaclions oflen roduce oosile exlremes as lhe
enduIum svings lhe olher vay, and so il vas lhal lhe onlic dislinc-
live of Chrislianily vas overshadoved by lhe eislemoIogicaI con-
cerns of doclrine and moraIily, as evidenced in lhe vrilings of lhe
church falhers and lheir reversion lo IegaIism. The ensuing creedaIiz-
ing of a Chrislian beIief-syslem has been referred lo as "lhe Lalin her-
esy,"
1
bul ve are herevilh using lhe broader designalion of "lhe eis-
lemoIogicaI heresy."
As lhe inslilulionaI church roceeded inlo lhe MedievaI eriod lhe
reservalion of doclrinaI orlhodoxy vas regarded as aramounl. In-
quisilions vere conducled lo combal error and herelicaI oinions, vilh
every means emIoyed lo oslracize, excommunicale and murder lhose
vho disagreed.
The Iroleslanl Reformalion vas bul a re-forming of lheoIogicaI and
elhicaI reasoning. }ohn CaIvin's lheoIogicaI syslemalizing in his |nsii-
iuics cj inc Cnrisiian |c|igicn reIied heaviIy on Auguslinian delermin-
soo
ism and lhe cIosed-syslem of eislemic lhoughl Augusline emIoyed.
CaIvin's elhics vere Iikevise devoid of onlic underslanding.
The hislory of Iroleslanlism is bul a meIee of doclrinaI argumenla-
lion as lhe denominalionaIized syslemalic lheoIogians conlend for
lheir inlerrelalions. The so-caIIed InIighlenmenl onIy exacerbaled lhe
eislemic varfare vilh ils emhasis on ralionaIism and lhe delermina-
lion of lrulh by deduclive Iogic and roosilionaI concIusions.
Has anylhing changed` Chrislian reIigion loday is mired in doclrinaI
disule. They argue over lhe Ienglh of one's cr!c sa|uiis in lhe "Lord-
shi saIvalion" debale. They banler aboul lhe Iegilimacy of charismalic
exerienliaIism. They alleml lo defend lheir hisloricaI and lheoIogicaI
asserlions vilh aoIogelic roofs. Conlemorary fundamenlaIism and
evangeIicaIism are so enlrenched in lhe "eislemoIogicaI heresy" lhal
lheir ideoIogies have become idoIalry, and lhey roceed lo vorshi
lhe aaI of naluraI lhinking ralher lhan God in Chrisl.
Making thc Distinctinn
Il is imeralive lhal ve make lhe dislinclion belveen an eislemo-
IogicaI base of knoving and erceiving aclion and an onloIogicaI base
of knoving and erceiving aclion. Chrislianily is nol essenliaIIy assenl
lo or beIief in lenels of lrulh, bul ralher recelivily lo and arlicialion
in lhe aclivily of lhe eing of lhe One vho is Trulh (}ohn 14:6). }esus
did nol say, "I came lhal you mighl have orlhodox beIiefs and defend
lhem aoIogelicaIIy." He said, "I came lhal you mighl have Iife (lhe
very eing of God) and have such more abundanlIy (in lhe abundanl
exression of God's characler in our behavior). (}ohn 10:10)
The reIigion of "naluraI man" inevilabIy sIides lovard eislemoIogi-
caI knovIedge, lovards knovIedge of exlernaI dala formuIaled in
roosilionaI lrulh slalemenls. These "arlicIes of failh" are defended
mosl adamanlIy as essenliaI doclrines of Chrislian calechism.
When lhe reason of man is lhus deified, il savns innumerabIe ideas,
concels, oinions, lhoughls, doclrines, re|udices, elc. These menlaI
sos
conslrucls (such as lhe "idea of God" or lhe "idea of saIvalion") lend lo
become seIf-exislenl enlilies, aulonomous lenels, vhich deveIo a his-
lory of lheir ovn, vilh a searale seIf-generalive funclion. Thus lhey
are evaIualed, Iolled, charled, anaIyzed, modified, aIlered and crili-
cized.
NaluraI lheoIogy deveIos an "idea aboul God" by IogicaI deduclion.
"He musl be, lherefore He is." Il is an alleml lo knov God aarl from
God. Such reasoning may even arrive al a concel of a monolheislic
God vho is infinileIy ersonaI and Ioving, vilh an onIy-begollen Son
vho vas viIIing lo be incarnaled and lo give His Iife in crucifixion.
Such an "idea of God" and "idea of saIvalion" can sliII be delached
from any ersonaI knoving of lhe Living God. If so il remains an
idoIalrous faIse-image carved in lhe mind of man. NaluraI lheoIogy is
analhema!
God can be knovn onIy in lhe ersonaI seIf-reveIalion of HimseIf.
More secificaIIy, lhal reveIalion is made by lhe Son (Luke 10:22). God
is knovn ersonaIIy and reIalionaIIy in an onloIogicaI bond, a siriluaI
union (I Cor. 6:17). God does nol reveaI some "lhing" aboul HimseIf in
order lo make avaiIabIe some "lhing" (such as hoIiness, goodness, Iove,
eace, elc.), ralher He reveaIs HimseIf, His eing, for lhal vhich He
desires lo give is HimseIf, His eing in aclion.
Our lheoIogy musl aIvays commence vilh vho God is, nol vilh His
decrees, His viII or His Iavs. God does vhal He does because He is
vho He is, nol because He has decreed a Ian, deveIoed a rinciIe,
delermined a recel, and sel lhese in molion in deislic delachmenl.
The eing of God and lhe acl of God musl remain connecled. They
musl aIvays cohere. There is no acl of God aarl from His eing. His
eing is aIvays dynamicaIIy invoIved in His acl. His doing is aIvays
lhe dynamic exression of His eing. The aclivily of God is derived
oul of His eing, ek lheos. "God is Iove" (I }ohn 4:8,16), lhe aclive ex-
ression of Iove is ek lheos (I }ohn 4:7), onIy and aIvays.
soz
God is lhe very conlenl of aII lhal He does. The divine aclion
(vhelher saIvalion, |uslificalion, sanclificalion, elc.) is necessariIy de-
rived oul of, and is lhe vilaI exression of, lhe divine eing in Chrisl.
Those vho vouId knov God's benefils and God's bIessings musl rec-
ognize lhal God's benefils lo man cannol be knovn aarl from His
funclionaI eing. God's bIessing is lo bIess us vilh HimseIf. God "has
bIessed us vilh every siriluaI bIessing in heavenIy Iaces in Chrisl"
(Ih 1:3), vho is lhe "summing u of aII lhings" (Ih. 1:10).
Who God is and vhal God does are insearabIe. His eing and His
acl musl ever remain uniled. This is lhe oinl lhal eislemoIogy faiIs lo
undersland. Inherenl in lhe ralionaIislic aroach is a "searaled con-
cel" lhal delaches lhe divine Aclualor from lhe divine aclivily. When
naluraI lheoIogy deaIs mereIy vilh "ideas" and "concels," lhen lhe
"idea of God" cannol be equaled or con|oined vilh lhe "idea" of divine
effecls (ex. saIvalion, sanclificalion, elc.). They sland aIone, aulono-
mousIy seIf-exislenl vilh indeendenl funclions. There is an isoIalion
of divine effecl lhal is exIainabIe onIy as lhe mechanicaI resuIl of lhe
"idea of God." Searaled inlo such consliluenl arls, Chrislian aclivily
is conslrued as confermenl or endovmenl of benefils. The divine acl is
disconnecled from lhe divine Aclor. Chrislian reaIilies are vieved as
roducls, commodilies, "goods," or "services." A rofessor vriles in a
urorledIy academic lheoIogicaI |ournaI: "God has made aymenl for
'services' rovided lhrough }esus Chrisl."
2
"...an individuaI comes lo
}esus...so he can receive vhal }esus offers."
3
"...saIvalion, securily, as-
surance...He (}esus) musl deIiver lhem."
4

Misconcelions of lhis kind are based on an eislemoIogicaI duaIism
of a dissecled cause and effecl. In lhe cIosed mechanislic syslem of
Nevlonian science, for examIe, lhere is a Iinear lhoughl rocess lhal
vievs emiricaI effecls as inevilabIe resuIls of necessary cosmic Iavs.
The effecl can be lraced back lo lhe cause bul never lo be considered
one vilh lhe cause. The same eislemoIogicaI duaIism is seen in reIi-
gious and lheoIogicaI reasoning. ReIigious effecls may be lraced lo
necessary universaI siriluaI "Iavs" such as lhe "Iav of failh" or lhe
"Iav of rayer." Oflen lhere are IegaI and |udiciaI concels of Chrisl's
so;
benefils, as in lhe ouIar lheoIogicaI exIanalion of |uslificalion.
Cause and effecl are sIil one from lhe olher. There may be mechanicaI
source Ieading lo slalic IogicaI effecl, or mylhoIogicaI source Ieading lo
ecslalic sychoIogicaI effecl, bul lhere remains a "searaled concel"
bolh eislemoIogicaIIy or exerienliaIIy.
The radicaI uniqueness of Chrislianily is in lhe onloIogicaI connec-
lion and cohesion of lhe divine cause or source and lhe divine effecl.
God, lhe divine source effecls lhe exression of His eing. The divine
effecl is onIy as God sources such by His grace. God can and musl be
idenlified vilh, even equaled vilh, His effecls. His effecls are lhe acliv-
ily of His eing.
Chrislian lheoIogy musl mainlain lhe oneness of siriluaI aclivily
vilh lhe Siril-source, God vilhin His acls. There is no siriluaI reaIily
lo lhal effecled aarl from lhe dynamic source-reaIily of Divine eing.
To searale benefil from eing is lo conslrucl a faIse reIigious image
vhich is nol lhe vilaI Iiving aclivily of God in Chrisl. Any reIigious acl
or idea, vieved aarl from vhal God is doing because He is vho He
is, oeraling by His grace, exressing HimseIf by His Son, }esus Chrisl,
is necessariIy sleriIe, slalic and severed from reaIily, as veII as idoIa-
lrous, abominabIe and analhema.
Derivalive man never generales Chrislian aclivily, or any aclivily for
lhal maller, for lhe corresonding lheodicy musl undersland lhe onlic
conneclion and associalion of lhe unregenerale idenlified vilh lhe IviI
one and manifesling his characler of eviI. The Chrislian, idenlified
vilh God in Chrisl, is free lo be funclionaI human being in onlic reIa-
lionshi vilh lhe divine eing. In lhal conlingency of failh-recelivily,
God comes lo dveII ersonaIIy in man lhereby giving lo man being,
nalure, idenlily and image in inlerersonaI reIalionshi vilh HimseIf,
vilh His Son, and aclivaling lhrough man lhe exression of His ovn
characler unlo His ovn gIory.
Chrislianily demands an onloIogicaI underslanding vilh an indivisi-
bIe coherence of God's eing and His acl. The dynamism of Chrislian
grace vherein lhe aclivily of lhe risen Lord }esus is oeralive by lhe
so
Siril is lhe hearlbeal of Chrislianily. The very erson and Iife of lhe
resurrecled Chrisl dveIIs in lhe Chrislian (II Cor. 13:5, GaI. 2:20, CoI.
1:27), and lhal in order lo manifesl His Iife in our morlaI bodies (II Cor.
4:10,11). Thus lhe dynamic funclion of God is reslored vilhin human-
ily, as He manifesls His eing in lhe human being.
Examp!cs
Il viII be inslruclive lo consider a fev basic lhemes of Chrislian
leaching lo consider lhe necessily of mainlaining lhe connecledness of
God and His vorking in Chrisl, and al lhe same lime lo exose exam-
Ies of lhe dis|unclure of such in ouIar evangeIicaI leaching, resuIl-
ing in deislic delachmenl and lrinilarian deficiency.
"Gnspc!"
Zane Hodges refers lo "lhe goseI under siege"
5
and }ohn MacArlhur
decries lhe "erosion of lhe goseI,"
6
bul in lheir anlagonism lhey bolh
conceive of lhe goseI as a corus of doclrinaI lrulhs. }oining lhe fray,
DarreII ock asserls lhal lhe "goseI is a recious lrulh"
7
vhich musl
be "handIed roerIy."
8
Dave Hunl concIudes lhal "lhe goseI...has
lhree basic eIemenls: (1) Who Chrisl is. (2) Who ve are. (3) Whal
Chrisl's dealh accomIished."
9
This lhree oinl informalion-ackage is
lhen said lo "save lhose vho beIieve il. Nolhing eIse viII save."
10
He
goes on lo seak disaragingIy of lhose vho mereIy "receive }esus."
11

Irom his ralionaIislic erch, }ohn W. Robbins exIains lhal "lhe goseI
is a creed. If ve do nol beIieve lhe creed, ve do nol beIieve Chrisl."
12

Robbins conlinues by saying, "Chrisl idenlified HimseIf vilh His
vords. The vords and lhe Word are idenlicaI."
13
If }esus' vords, His
leaching, His roosilionaI and senlenliaI inslruclion, are lhe formuIa-
lion of lhe goseI, lhen il vouId be Iegilimale lo refer lo "lhe goseI
according lo }esus," as does }ohn MacArlhur.
14
In so doing, lhough, lhe
goseI is searaled from }esus Chrisl and lhe "searaled concel" of
eislemoIogy is evidenl. The goseI is lhus delached from lhe aclive
eing of God and devaIued lo bul one beIief-syslem among many, aI-
beil lhe divineIy reveaIed leaching ralher lhan human visdom.
so,
The "good nevs" of lhe goseI is }esus Chrisl! The goseI is nol Iogi-
caI roosilions, bul lhe Iiving Ierson of God in Chrisl. Il is "good
nevs" indeed lhal God has made avaiIabIe in His Son lhe resloralion
of lhe vilaI dynamic of His divine eing, lhal by lhe indveIIing res-
ence and aclivily of lhe risen and Iiving Lord }esus. OnIy in such an
onloIogicaI conneclion is lhe divine inlenl of lhe goseI reserved.
Gerhardl Iriedrich exIains lhal "lhe goseI and ils conlenl are one,"
15

"lhe risen Lord is lhe aucicr ctangc|ii,"
16
lhe originalion and enaclmenl
of lhe goseI.
"5a!vatinn"
The goseI is lhe dynamic over of God unlo saIvalion (Rom. 1:16).
Since lhe goseI is }esus, and Chrisl is lhe over of God (I Cor. 1:24),
lhe saving aclivily of God musl nol be disassocialed from lhe funclion
of lhe Savior.
Conlemorary evangeIicaI lhoughl refers lime and again lo }esus
"bringing" and "deIivering"
17
saIvalion, as if saIvalion vere lhe benefi-
ciaI roducl vhich }esus lhe "deIivery-boy" came lo rovide. DarreII
ock refers lo }esus as "lhe divine disenser of saIvalion,"
18
aarenlIy
casling }esus inlo a roIe simiIar lo a bubbIe-gum disenser or a medicaI
disensary. Hov oflen have you heard someone refer lo anolher vho
aIIegedIy "gol saved," as if saIvalion vere some "lhing" lhal ve gel and
ossess or some slalic exerience or evenl` These eislemoIogicaI con-
cels rend saIvalion from lhe necessary coherence vilh lhe Savior, so
lhal lhe hisloricaI redemlive vork of lhe Savior is delached and sea-
raled from lhe resenl exerience of saIvalion. The risen and Iiving
Lord }esus and His on-going "saving Iife" (Rom. 5:10) become bul an
unnecessary redundancy, for saIvalion slands aIone as a mechanicaI
divine effecl of an hisloricaIIy enacled evenl. God forbid lhal such
shouId be romuIgaled in lhe name of Chrislianily!
SaIvalion cannol be searaled from lhe Savior. There is no saIvalion
aarl from lhe on-going, conlinuous, dynamic saving Iife and aclion of
}esus lhe Savior. The divine source and lhe saIvific effecl are combined.
His saving aclivily is HimseIf in aclion. OnIy vhen lhe Savior, }esus
so
Chrisl, is funclionaIIy oeralive in lhe Chrislian do ve arliciale in
lhe saIvalion rocess, being made safe from dysfunclionaI and mis-
used humanily in order lo funclion as God inlended by His eing
funclioning in mankind. SaIvalion musl be con|oined onloIogicaIIy
vilh lhe Iiving Savior.
"Gracc"
If ve accel lhe ouIar definilion of "grace" as a "gifl" or an "unde-
served favor," lhe faclor of eislemoIogicaI searalion is again obvi-
ous. The divine Giver is sel aarl from lhe gifl. An onloIogicaI consid-
eralion of grace recognizes lhal aII lhal God gives is HimseIf, His ovn
eing in aclion.
Grace is somelimes erceived as a mechanicaI inslrumenl of causaI-
ily, lhe "force" God emIoys lo accomIish His desires. Grace has been
vieved as lhe "lhreshoId faclor" lhal effecled redemlion vhich lhen
aIIovs for lhe individuaI effecl of conversion. Some have exIained
grace as some "lhing" God imarls as lhe arceIs of His sufficiency are
needed. TheoIogians have referred lo lhe "infusion of grace," "lhe
means of grace," lhe eccIesiaslicaI "disensing of grace." AII of lhese
are allemls lo quanlify grace, disassocialing grace from God.
Grace is indivisibIe from God HimseIf. Grace is lhe seIf-giving of
God in His Son, }esus Chrisl. "Grace is reaIized lhrough }esus Chrisl"
(}ohn 1:17), and lhere is no grace aarl from Chrisl. God does nol acl
cn !issccic or cn pariic. He does nol acl aarl from vho He is, aarl
from }esus Chrisl and lhe HoIy Siril.
This divine exression of lhe Oneness of His lriune eing can be a-
Iied lo aII olher Chrislian lhemes aIso. Righleousness (|uslificalion)
cannol be dis|oined from }esus Chrisl, lhe Righleous One (I }ohn 2:1).
GodIiness cannol be isoIaled from lhe dynamic exression of God's
characler. Sanclificalion cannol be searaled from lhe HoIy One aclive
by His HoIy Siril.
so;
The goseI of saIvalion by God's grace is onloIogicaIIy eslabIished in
lhe eing of God exressed in His acls. The eislemoIogicaI heresy
vhich slalicaIIy searales Chrislianily from Chrisl, and saIvalion from
lhe Savior, musl be reudialed.
Chrislians musl cease lo offer a "faIse biII of goods," an eislemoIogi-
caI ackage of roosilionaI lrulhs and aIIeged siriluaI benefils de-
lached from lhe dynamic of God's grace and lhe Iiving Lord }esus. To
exIain lhe onloIogicaI reaIily of God's eing funclioning in man reIa-
lionaIIy, }esus Chrisl Iiving in lhe Chrislian and vorking oul saIvalion
lhrough lhe Chrislian, is mosl difficuIl since faIIen man is accuslomed
lo lhinking onIy in naluraI eislemoIogicaI calegories. Iven so, lhe
Chrislian is comeIIed from vilhin lo share }esus Chrisl, lrusling lhal
in lhe midsl of such resenlalion God viII onloIogicaIIy reveaI HimseIf
lo olhers by lhe Siril of Chrisl.

FOOTNOTE5
1 Torrance, Thomas I., Kar| Barin, Bi||ica| an! |tangc|ica| Tncc|cgian. Idinburgh: T&T
CIark, 1990. g. 215.
2 ock, DarreII L., Bi||icincca Sacra, "A Reviev of 'The GoseI According lo }esus'", }an.-
Mar., 1989. g. 38.
3 ock, ||i!. g. 38
4 ock, ||i!. g. 32
5 Hodges, Zane, Tnc Gcspc| Un!cr Sicgc, A Siu!q cn |aiin an! Wcrks. DaIIas: Redencion
Viva, 1981.
6 MacArlhur, }ohn I. }r., Tnc Gcspc| Acccr!ing ic jcsus. Grand Raids: Zondervan. 1988.
7 ock, DarreI L., Bi||icincca Sacra, Reviev... g. 21.
8 ock, ||i!. g. 22.
9 Hunl, Dave, Tnc Bcrcan Ca||. AriI, 1993. g. 1.
10 Hunl, ||i!. g. 1.
11 Hunl, ||i!. g. 1.
12 Robbins, }ohn W., Tnc Triniiq |cticu. AriI, 1993. g. 4.
13 Robbins, ||i!. g. 4.
14 MacArlhur, }ohn I. }r., Tnc Gcspc| Acccr!ing ic jcsus.
15 KilleI, Gerhard (ed.), Tncc|cgica| Oiciicnarq cj inc Ncu Tcsiancni. VoI. II. "euangeIIion",
g. 733.
16 KilleI, ||i!. g. 734.
17 ock, DarreII, Bi||icincca Sacra, Reviev... g. 32.
18 ock, DarreII, Bi||icincca Sacra. Ar.-}une 1986.

so8
6 Chrislianily is Nol an IdeaIogicaI Olion

Thnsc nutsidc nI thc Christian Iaith oflen viev Chrislianily as bul an
ideoIogicaI olion among many such reIigious and hiIosohicaI o-
lions avaiIabIe lo human reasoning, accelance, or devolion. As lhey
ass by lhe smorgasbord of human lhoughl, many eoIe beIieve lhal
lhe ob|eclive is lo seIecl one, or erhas a combinalion of many ideas,
lhal lhey find referabIe or aIalabIe lo suil lheir ersonaI lasles. Hav-
ing done so, lhey can lhen sellIe-in lo a conlenled en|oymenl of lheir
beIief choices, and advocale lhal olhers do lhe same.
Chrislians are arlIy lo bIame for lhis skeved erseclive of Chrislian-
ily as an ideoIogicaI olion. Chrislians have oflen ro|ecled lhe idea
lhal Chrislianily is a beIieve-righl reIigion an eislemoIogicaI exer-
cise in deveIoing a beIief-syslem lhal aIigns vilh correcl hisloricaI in-
lerrelalion, orlhodox lheoIogicaI formuIalion, and accurale doclrines
carefuIIy vorded in a creedaI slalemenl of failh. The beIieve-righl
reIigion lhen becomes a do-righl reIigion, as moraI slandards and
elhicaI guideIines are formuIaled lo corresond vilh lhe ideoIogicaI
beIiefs, and lo enforce behavioraI conformily in deed and vord.
Il is lime lo recognize and asserl, Chrislianily is nol an ideoIogicaI o-
lion. Mankind is nol faced vilh a muIliIe-choice quiz vherein an in-
dividuaI musl ick and choose one of severaI ideas lo lhe excIusion of
aII olhers, or aII of lhe above in an incIusive combinalion of beIief
lenels. Though lhe human race is indeed confronled vilh a IuraIily of
ideoIogicaI olions comeling for accelance in men's minds, lhe
Chrislian goseI is nol one of lhose ideoIogicaI olions. Conservalive,
fundamenlaIislic Chrislian reIigion may ro|ecl lhal Chrislianily is a
suerior ideoIogicaI olion lhal excIudes aII olher olions as inferior,
faIIacious and unbeIievabIe, lhus |uslifying lheir allemls lo conserve
CHRISTIANITY IS NOT AN IDEALOGICAL OPTION
so
lheir ovn beIief as lhe onIy viabIe olion of fundamenlaI failh. LiberaI
and rogressive Chrislian reIigion, on lhe olher hand, may deicl
Chrislianily as an ideoIogicaI olion among a IuraIily of beIief-
olions of equivaIenl veracily and vaIidily, aIIoving lhe individuaI lo
choose one olion, or a combinalion of severaI, or lo incIusiveIy incor-
orale aII olions as bul differing alhs by vhich lo aroach lhe one
god of lhe universe. olh of lhese aroaches, lhe fundamenlaIisl lhal
seeks lo eslabIish an absoIulisl beIief slalemenl lhal excIudes aII olhers,
and lhe IiberaI lhal aIIovs an incIusive ecIeclicism lhal merges aII
lhoughl inlo reIalivism, mislakenIy viev lhe Chrislian goseI as an
ideoIogicaI olion. The issue lhal lhe Chrislian goseI confronls us
vilh is nol a choice of an ideoIogicaI olion, bul lhe choice of Iife or
dealh.
AIIov me lo iIIuslrale in lhe form of an anaIogy, admilling al lhe oul-
sel lhal lhe corresondences in aII anaIogies break dovn sooner or
Ialer. The reader viII soon delecl lhal lhe delaiIs of lhis anaIogy have
lheir breaking oinl.
A cerlain man (isn'l lhal hov }esus slarled many of His araboIic
anaIogies`) made an aoinlmenl vilh his famiIy hysician lo find oul
if lhe doclor couId diagnose some heaIlh robIems he vas exerienc-
ing.
Whal are your symloms` lhe doclor asked.
Doc, I am exeriencing ain in lhis region of my body, and I have no-
liced some discharges vhich I did nol reviousIy have, lhe man re-
sonded.
The hysician examined lhe man, conducled an array of medicaI lesls,
and senl some secimens lo lhe medicaI Iaboralory for anaIysis. When
lhe resuIls of lhe Iab lesls vere avaiIabIe, lhe hysician consuIled vilh
his alienl and advised him lhal lhe reorls indicaled lhere vere some
hysicaI abnormaIilies lhal vouId besl be lrealed by a medicaI seciaI-
isl. I am referring you lo a seciaIisl in lhis fieId of medicine, lhe
doclor inloned.
sso
The medicaI seciaIisl conducled more comrehensive bioIogicaI lesls,
and senl addilionaI secimens lo lhe Iaboralory. When lhese Iab lesls
vere relurned, lhe seciaIisl consuIled vilh lhe man, and comassion-
aleIy reorled lhe diagnosis lo him. You have a form of cancer, lhe
doclor exIained, and lhis kind of cancer can be lerminaI. Il can resuIl
in dealh.
Whal are my olions` lhe man asked.
If Iefl unlrealed, you viII die in lhe near fulure, lhe doclor reIied.
The onIy olher olion is a singuIar lrealmenl regimen avaiIabIe for
lhis arlicuIar kind of cancer. ul I musl advise you lhal lhe lrealmenl
is nol easy or Ieasanl. In facl, il is ainfuI and uncomforlabIe. Il re-
quires resonsibiIily on lhe arl of lhe alienl lo slay vilh lhe regimen
of lhe lrealmenl, and viII require lhe curlaiImenl of some of your
scheduIed aclivilies. ul lhis lrealmenl has roven quile successfuI for
lhis form of cancer, and viII robabIy aIIov you lo Iive a roIonged
Iife (lhough nol elernaI, for lhis is vhere lhe anaIogy breaks
dovn!). Il is your choice, lhe doclor exIained, and I recognize lhal
such decisions can be difficuIl. I viII nol ressure, maniuIale or co-
erce your choice.
The man resonded lo lhe doclor somevhal indignanlIy. WeII, I do
nol Iike lhose olions, doclor. Il does nol seem fair lo me lhal lhis
shouId be my onIy choice. Il seems lo me lo be excIusivislic, and I do
nol areciale excIusivism.
The doclor, laken aback by such a resonse, reIied, WeII, I don'l un-
dersland vhy you lhink lhis is excIusivism. To excIude is lo 'cul oul.
You are nol being 'cul oul' or 'shul oul.' You are being given an o-
lion, an eilher-or choice of lrealmenl or lhe re|eclion of lrealmenl. ul
il does come dovn lo a choice of Iife or dealh. Do nolhing aboul lhe
cancer lhal has invaded you body, and you viII die. Accel and re-
ceive lhe onIy knovn lrealmenl for lhis kind of cancer, aIong vilh ils
accomanying side-effecls, and you viII Iive (Ionger). The onIy 'excIu-
sion' here is lhal you viII 'excIude' yourseIf from |ijc, and consign
sss
yourseIf lo !cain, if you refuse lhe singuIar lrealmenl avaiIabIe lo you.
ul, lhal is qcur choice!
The corresondence of lhis anaIogy lo lhe avaiIabiIily of Iife in }esus
Chrisl lhrough lhe Chrislian goseI is seIf-evidenl, bul aIIov me lo
make some observalions.
The naluraI man (cf. I Cor. 2:14) vanls a IuraIily of olions,
vhelher il is medicaI lrealmenls or ideoIogicaI beIiefs. Why is lhis so`
ecause lhe naluraI man vievs himseIf in lhe eIevaled osilion of
being an aulonomous arbiler, freeIy choosing vhal he delermines lo be
lhe besl olion. Having deified human reason in his ovn cognilive
abiIilies and oinions, lhe humanislic ralionaIism of faIIen man insisls
on a muIliIe-choice from among a IuraIily of olions. Thus he can
Iay God in making lhe choice of accelabIe or unaccelabIe. If
a singuIar eilher-or choice is resenled, lhis visdom of lhe vorId (I
Cor. 1:20) inevilabIy comIains of excIusivism,
SinguIarily of soIulion does nol of necessily imIy excIusivism. Do ve
comIain lo lhe scienlific hysicisl of cosmoIogy, I cannol/viII nol ac-
cel lhe singuIarily of your 'ig ang lheory' of cosmoIogicaI origins,
because il is excIusivislic.` I demand a seclrum of olions from
vhich lo choose, or erhas lo form my ovn ecIeclic amaIgam of oin-
ions. No, for singuIarily does nol imIy excIusivism.
The message of lhe Chrislian goseI is lhal lhe singuIar God (God is
one Deul. 6:4) senl His singuIar (onIy begollen }n. 3:16,18, I }n.
4:9) Son on a singuIar redemlive mission (cf. }ude 1:3) lo earlh in in-
carnalionaI idenlificalion vilh man (cf. }n. 1:14, IhiI. 2:6-8). The Son
offered u HimseIf (cf. GaI. 2:20, Heb. 7:27) as lhe singuIar (once and
for aII Rom. 6:10, Heb. 10:12) sacrifice lo lake uon HimseIf lhe
dealh consequences of man's sin, and make His singuIar elernaI Iife
(cf. I }n. 5:12,13) avaiIabIe lo aII mankind. Thal is vhy }esus says, 'I AM
lhe vay, lhe lrulh, and lhe Iife, no man comes lo lhe Ialher bul
lhrough Me (}n. 14:6). This is nol excIusivism, bul il is a singuIarily of
Iife olion. There is no olher name given among men by vhich a man
musl be saved (Acls 4:12), decIared Ieler in lhe firsl sermon of lhe
ssz
church. No one is excIuded or cul oul, for aII men universaIIy, vilh-
oul discriminalion, are inviled lo make lhe eilher-or decision lo receive
Chrisl's Iife. God is nol viIIing lhal any shouId erish, bul lhal aII
may come lo reenlance (II Iel. 3:9). Whoever viII caII uon lhe
Lord viII be saved (Rom. 10:13).
}esus did nol say, I came lhal you mighl have ideoIogicaI olions re-
senled lo your human reasoning vilh lhe assumed aulonomous abiIily
lo accel, re|ecl, or merge lhese in excIusivism or incIusivism, and lhus
lo be conlenled vilh your choice. Whal He did say vas, I came lhal
you mighl have Iife, and have il more abundanlIy (}ohn 10:10). I am
lhal Iife (}n. 14:6). He vho beIieves in lhe Son has elernaI Iife, bul he
vho does nol obey lhe Son shaII nol see Iife (}n. 3:36). He vho be-
Iieves in Me shaII never die (}n. 11:26), i.e. shaII nol exerience lhe
second dealh (cf. Rev. 2:11, 20:14). The issue is Iife or dealh! The
vages of sin is dealh, bul lhe free gifl of God is elernaI Iife in Chrisl }e-
sus our Lord (Rom. 6:23).
The charge of excIusivism is onIy made by lhose vho imroerIy
consider Chrislianily lo be an ideoIogicaI olion among a muIliIicily
of ideoIogicaI olions offered by men (nol God) lhrough lhe cenluries.
Such a charge of excIusivism viII inevilabIy and aIvays be made by
lhose vho refuse lo accel }esus Chrisl as lhe onIy Iife olion, lhe
singuIar soIulion lo lhe sin robIem, and lhe singuIar source of saIva-
lion lhal reslores mankind lo God's inlenl. UnbeIievers aIvays de-
mand olher olions so lhey can emIoy lheir deified human reasoning
lo be lhe finaI |udge of vhal is accelabIe or unaccelabIe, righl or
vrong, Iife or dealh. They vanl lo Iay God. Concurrenl vilh lheir
charges of excIusivism, lhey viII aIvays argue for an incIusivily lhal
gives equaI credence lo aII beIief-conslrucls or ideoIogicaI olions,
cIaiming lhal aII roads Iead lo lhe same reIigious reaIily vilh varianl
exressions. This aIvays Ieads lo reIalivism, aIIoving every individuaI
lo conslrucl lheir ovn lrulh, and decIaring lrulh lo be vhalever lhey
erceive il lo be. Again, selling lhemseIves u as God.
ss;
The Chrislian goseI is nol an ideoIogicaI olion aIongside many olh-
ers. Ralher, lhe Chrislian goseI is lhe good nevs of lhe singuIar
source of siriluaI Iife in }esus Chrisl, in conlrasl lo siriluaI dealh
resenlIy and in lhe hereafler. IxcIusivily or incIusivily of ideoIogicaI
olions is nol lhe issue. The issue is Iife or dealh! Mankind has been
offered an eilher-or, Yes or No choice of vhelher ve viII accel
siriluaI and elernaI Iife in Chrisl, or re|ecl Him. He vho has lhe Son
has Iife, he vho does nol have lhe Son of God does nol have Iife (I }n.
5:12).
The onIy excIusion is lhal an individuaI viII excIude himseIf from
|ijc, and consign himseIf lo !cain, if he refuses lo accel and receive lhe
singuIar lrealmenl olion lhal is avaiIabIe in }esus Chrisl. ul lhal is
qcur choice!

ss
7 Chrislianily is Nol RoIe-IIaying

The famous bard from Avon, WiIIiam Shakeseare, vrole inlo lhe
scril of his Iay, As Ycu Iikc |i, lhese Iines,
"AII lhe vorId's a slage,
And aII lhe men and vomen mereIy Iayers.
They have lheir exils and lheir enlrances,
And one man in his lime Iays many arls."
1

Is il lrue lhal "aII lhe vorId's a slage," and Iife is "Iaying various
arls" or roIes` The vorId-syslem seems lo be buiIl on lhe relense of
Iaying roIes. AII men and vomen are eilher aclors or aclresses. Some
vork back-slage, some have bil-arls, some have suorling roIes, and
aII asire lo achieve a slar-roIe.
There is a basic hiIosohy vhich ervades lhe lhinking of our soci-
ely loday vhich regards everylhing as a "shov," a "roduclion," a "er-
formance." Il is aII "slaged" and orcheslraled and choreograhed by
lhe Iroducer/Direclor named "Iale." "The Shov musl go on!"
In lhis humanislic drama of human exislence aII lhe Iayers deveIo
a "faIse ersona." Il's a ruse. Il's a fake. Il's aII ficlion. W. Somersel
Maughn, in his vork, Tnc Sunning Up, vriles, "The drama is make-
beIieve. Il does nol deaI vilh lrulh, bul vilh effecl."
2
Whal he seems lo
be saying is lhal lhe drama is nol reaIily or lrulh. The ro|ecled symboI
and ils effecl on lhe audience is aII lhal mallers.
TaIk-shov hosl, Rush Limbaugh, has oinled oul lhal lhere is an
abundance of unreaIily on lhe oIilicaI slage in our sociely loday. He
has oinled oul lhe hyocrisy of "symboI over subslance," and Iaying
CHRISTIANITY IS NOT ROLE-PLAYING
ss,
for lhe effecl lhal somelhing has uon olhers. AII lhal seems lo maller
is lhe exislenliaI ercelion of lhe individuaI.
The concel of Iife as "roIe-Iaying" has ermealed so much of our
sociely loday. Take, for examIe, lhe socielaI issue of homosexuaIily.
When lvo men enler inlo vhal lhey caII a "reIalionshi," lhey are roIe-
Iaying. UsuaIIy one assumes lhe roIe of lhe husband, and lhe olher
assumes lhe roIe of lhe vife. Neilher is a reaI man. A reaI man reIales
lo a voman as God inlended belveen husband and vife. The one vho
Iays lhe roIe of lhe husband in lhe homosexuaI reIalionshi is nol a
reaI maIe, and lhe one vho Iays lhe roIe of lhe vife in lhe homosex-
uaI reIalionshi is nol a reaI femaIe (obviousIy). Il is a erverse form of
roIe-Iaying. Why is il lhal homosexuaIs are so oflen allracled lo, and
found vilhin, lhe fine-arls communily` Aclors, aclresses, musicians,
arlisls, dancers. Is il because lhese oflen engage in lhe unreaIily of roIe-
Iaying`
The sociaI issue of feminism Iooms Iarge in our sociely loday. They
are concerned aboul gender-roIes. Thinking lhal "vife" and "molher"
are |usl roIes lhal vomen Iay, lhey asire lo lhe slar-roIe of being
C.I.O. of lhe comany or Iresidenl of lhe Uniled Slales. WiII lhal
make lhem more of a voman` more femaIe` more feminine` Il viII
nol. Il viII onIy sel lhem u as anolher kind of aclress, Iaying anolher
roIe. RadicaI feminisl lheoIogy vanls lo caII God "Molher" or "Il." They
faIIaciousIy lhink lhal "Ialher" is |usl a roIe lhal God Iays, and lhey
vanl lo recasl His roIe. LillIe do lhey reaIize lhal lo say "God is our Ia-
lher," is lo exIain and give meaning lo Divine rovision, roleclion,
roagalion of Iife, elc. Il is nol |usl a lilIe-roIe. RadicaI feminism mis-
lakenIy casls everylhing inlo lhe roIe-Iaying of gender roIes.
The conlemorary sychoIogism of idenlifying dysfunclionaI fami-
Iies and lheir inler-reIalionaI lrails, Iikevise casls aII famiIy dynamics
inlo roIe-Iaying. IamiIy members are regarded as Iaying differenl
roIes, such as "codeendenl enabIer," lhe "scaegoal chiId," elc. If lhe
reIalionshi of a famiIy is considered onIy as differenl members Iay-
ing differenl roIes, il viII be dysfunclionaI indeed.
ss
Is reIigion any differenl` ReIigion |usl resenls mankind vilh an-
olher slage, on vhich lo engage in yel anolher avenue of "roIe-
Iaying." Somelimes il is nolhing more lhan assuming lhe roIe of audi-
ence or arlicianl in lhe Sunday morning "roduclion" of a vorshi
"erformance." Slaged Chrislianily uls on lhe shov! Il is aII symboI
vilhoul subslance. When il is over and lhe curlain cIoses, everyone
lakes off lheir coslumes and lheir masks and lheir make-u, and goes
home unliI lhe nexl roduclion, feeIing no need lo mainlain lhe roIe
excel vhen lhey are on lhe reIigious slage. }ohn CaIvin refers lo such
reIigious aclors, noling lhal "in aII ages lhere have been cerlain vor-
shiers of God vho have vorshied him Iike slage-Iayers, vhose
hoIiness did vhoIIy consisl in geslures and vain oms."
3

Somelimes reIigion casls ilseIf as a IifeslyIe of roIe-Iaying. The con-
verl assumes lhe idenlily of a "Chrislian" on lhe reIigious slage. They
are execled lo Iay lhe roIe and slay "in characler." They reeal lheir
Iines, arrol lheir arl, and Iay lheir roIe. They "go lhrough lhe mo-
lions" knoving lhal lhe riluaIs are nol reaIily. ReIigion is |usl a "bil-
arl" lhey Iay in Iife. Il's nol reaI. They are vearing masks and cos-
lumes. Il is hyocrisy! Their conlinualion in such makes lhem enabIers
lo one anolher in lhe ficlionaI drama lhal lhey are aII Iay-acling, and
lhey become codeendenl lo one anolher's sins.
Aclivislic reIigion has encouraged ils casl lo Iay various roIes in
suorl of chosen causes. Oflen il is lhe "crusader roIe" againsl abor-
lion, ornograhy or secified sociaI eviIs. Olher limes il may be lhe
"Good Samarilan roIe," serving in a sou-kilchen or al a rescue mis-
sion. The roIe is Iayed vilh lhe ulmosl of sincerily as il is regarded as
lhe reaIily of lheir reIigion.
In order lo Iay lhe roIe in lhe reIigious drama, lhere musl be a su-
orling casl lo make lhe Iay vork. Iveryone has lo Iay lhe game lo-
gelher, and be viIIing lo acl-oul lhe same scenario, Ionging for lhe a-
Iause of a |ob veII-done. Wilhoul such lhe individuaIized hyocrisy
becomes a sham! The eccIesiaslicaI communily of lhe inslilulionaI
church has served as lhe suorling casl for lhis reIigious roIe-Iaying.
ss;
ReIigion is a simuIaled reaIily roIe-Iaying. The misnomer of "Chris-
lian reIigion" has Iong encouraged ils casl lo Iay lhe roIe of a Chris-
lian. IeoIe are encouraged lo "acl Iike a Chrislian." The effecl uon
olhers is emhasized lo lhe negIecl of reaIily.
Chrislianily, as differenlialed from "Chrislian reIigion," is nol roIe-
Iaying!
The Chrislian idenlifies in siriluaI soIidarily vilh }esus Chrisl, vho
becomes his/her Iife, and lhe basis of lheir nev idenlily as a "Chrisl-
one," a Chrislian. "If anyone is in Chrisl, he is a nev crealure, oId
lhings have assed avay, behoId aII lhing have become nev." (II Cor.
5:17). The Chrislian does nol have an assumed idenlily, bul lhe reaI
idenlily vherein "Chrisl Iives in me" (GaI. 2:20). The Chrislian is nol
Iaying a roIe, bul lhe essenliaI reaIily of lhe Iife of }esus Chrisl in-
dveIIs vilhin and is lo funclion lhrough his/her behavior. The onlo-
IogicaI eing of }esus Chrisl, lhe "I AM," conslilules vho ve are and
vhal ve do. Il is an acluaI Iiving-oul of lhe Iife of }esus Chrisl in lhe
Chrislian's behavior.
Il is nol "make-beIieve." Chrislianily is reaI-beIieve. Iailh invoIves lhe
recelivily of lhe aclivily of lhe Iife of }esus Chrisl in me. Il is lhe re-
celivily of divine reaIily, lhe eing of Chrisl exressed in our behav-
ior.
There is a vasl difference belveen acling oul a roIe or arl, and acl-
ing in our behavior by lhe exression of lhe Iife of }esus Chrisl Iived
oul lhrough us. Trying lo "slay in characler" lhroughoul lhe reIigious
"erformance" is very difficuIl and demanding, bul }esus Chrisl vanls
lo "manifesl His Iife in our morlaI bodies" (II Cor. 4:10,11), His charac-
ler in our behavior. We are nol caIIed lo lhe faIse-ersona of an aclor or
aclress, bul lo lhe ReaIily of lhe Ierson of }esus Chrisl Iived oul
lhrough man.
This reaIily of an onloIogicaI idenlily vilh Chrisl is reIalionaI, firsl in
lhe ersonaI reIalionshi lhe Chrislian has vilh }esus Chrisl, and sec-
ondIy in lhe reIalionaI communily of lhe Church vherein ve need
ss8
each olher in order lo encourage one anolher (Heb. 10:25) in lhe Iiving
oul of our nev idenlily. The Church is nol mereIy a "suorlive casl
for our roIe-Iaying," il is lhe exlended ody lhal shares in lhe very
Life of }esus Chrisl lhal forms our idenlily as "Chrisl-ones." We are "in
Him" logelher, sharing His Life, and encouraging one anolher lo be-
have Iike vho ve have reaIIy and siriluaIIy become. This genuine
muluaIily and unily aIIovs for no masks of hyocrisy, bul aIIovs us lo
"dro our guard" in lrue lransarency in order lo Iive oul His Iife lo-
gelher.
Chrislianily is nol roIe Iaying! Chrislianily is lhe reaIily of lhe Ier-
son of }esus Chrisl Iived oul in Chrislian behavior.

FOOTNOTE5
1 Shakeseare, WiIIiam, As Ycu Iikc |i, Acis 2, Sccnc 6. Tnc P|aqs an! Scnncis cj Wi||ian
Snakcspcarc. Vc|. |. Grcai Bccks cj inc Wcsicrn Wcr|!. Chicago: IncycIooedia rilannica Inc.
1952. g. 608.
2 Maugham, W. Somersel, Tnc Sunning Up. 1938. g. 39.
3 CaIvin, }ohn, Ccnncniarq upcn inc Acis cj inc Apcsi|cs. VoI. I. Grand Raids: aker
ook House, g. 559.

ss
8 Chrislianily is Nol an ...ism

In a prcvinus chaptcr ve soughl lo exIain lhal Chrislianily is nol a
reIigion, desile lhe facl lhal lhe misnomer of "Chrislian reIigion" does
exisl loday. The faiIure lo differenliale belveen Chrislianily and reIig-
ion has crealed much confusion and obfuscalion in lhe lhinking of
bolh Chrislians and non-Chrislians. Il has become necessary lo exIain
lhal lhe Chrislian reIigion, somelimes referred lo as "Chrislendom," is
lhe organized inslilulionaI enlily lhal many aIso mislakenIy refer lo as
lhe "Church." Thal is vhy Soren Kierkegaard vrole a book enlilIed Ai-
iack cn Cnrisicn!cn, and exIained lhal
"Chrislendom is an efforl of lhe human race lo go back lo vaIking on
aII fours, lo gel rid of Chrislianily, lo do il knavishIy under lhe relexl
lhal lhis is Chrislianily, cIaiming lhal il is Chrislianily erfecled.
1

The Chrislianily of Chrislendom...lakes avay from Chrislianily lhe of-
fense, lhe aradox, elc., and inslead of lhal inlroduces robabiIily, lhe
IainIy comrehensibIe. Thal is, il lransforms Chrislianily inlo some-
lhing enlireIy differenl from vhal il is in lhe Nev Teslamenl, yea, inlo
exaclIy lhe oosile, and lhis is lhe Chrislianily of Chrislendom, of us
men."
2

Chrislian reIigion is lhe socioIogicaI movemenl lhal is comrised of
formuIaled beIief-syslems and moraIily allerns, and is slruclured inlo
hierarchicaI oIilicaI organizalions. Chrislianily, on lhe olher hand, is
lhe vilaI dynamic of lhe Siril of Chrisl in lhose vho are recelive lo
Him by failh. A Chrislian is a "Chrisl-one," idenlified in siriluaI union
vilh }esus Chrisl, and Chrislianily is "Chrisl-in-you-ily" (cf. CoI. 1:27,
II Cor. 13:5), as lhe Siril of Chrisl indveIIs lhe siril of each Chrislian
individuaI (Rom. 8:9).
CHRISTIANITY IS NOT AN ISM
szo
Our exIanalions are furlher comIicaled vhen ve recognize lhal
lhe IngIish vord "Chrislianily" has as ils equivaIenl in lhe Irench Ian-
guage, lhe vord "chrislianisme." This vouId lend lo imIy lhal Chris-
lianily is some form of hiIosohicaI ...ism. Such is nol lhe case. Chris-
lianily is nol an ...ism! }acques IIIuI, a Irench vriler, vrole a book enli-
lIed Ia Su|tcrsicn !u Cnrisiianisnc. Il vas Ialer lransIaled inlo IngIish
as Tnc Su|tcrsicn cj Cnrisiianiiq,
3
bul lhis vas misIeading lo some Ing-
Iish readers vho did nol reaIize lhe !cu||c cnicn!rc of lhe lilIe, and lhus
lhoughl lhal IIIuI vas engaged in Chrislian-bashing. God forbid, for
IIIuI vas an exlremeIy aslule Chrislian vho did, indeed, crilicaIIy ex-
ose Chrislian reIigion, bul admirabIy exounded lhe reaIily of Chris-
lianily in lhe Iiving Lord }esus Chrisl. In facl, il vas }acques IIIuI vho,
in lhe aforemenlioned book, soughl lo exIain lhal Chrislianily is nol
an ...ism, and lhus rovided lhe germinaI idea for lhis chaler. Il viII
be inslruclive lo quole vhal he vrole, and aIIov il lo serve as a
sringboard for our furlher eIucidalion.
"A vord ending in 'ism' denoles an ideoIogicaI or doclrinaI lrend de-
riving from a hiIosohy. Thus ve have osilivism, sociaIism, reubIi-
canism, siriluaIism, ideaIism, maleriaIism, elc. None of lhese vords,
hovever, denoles lhe hiIosohy ilseIf. In facl, il mighl be direclIy o-
osed lo il. Marx and Kierkegaard bolh lried lo revenl lheir lhinking
from being reduced lo an ideoIogicaI mechanism. ul lhey couId nol
slo lheir successors from freezing lheir Iiving lhoughl inlo one (or
many) syslems, and in lhis vay an ideoIogy arose. Iven Sarlre accels
lhe lerm exislenliaIism vilhoul seeing hov il erverls vhal he is say-
ing. The momenl lhe mulalion lakes Iace from exislenliaI lhinking lo
exislenliaIism, a Iiving slream is lransformed inlo a more or Iess regu-
Ialed and slagnanl irrigalion channeI, and as lhe lhoughl moves fur-
lher and furlher avay from lhe source il becomes banaI and famiIiar.
The suffix 'ism' in|ecls somelhing nev inlo a veII-marked and veII-
defined comIex. As originaIily is eIiminaled and reIaced by com-
monIaces, lhe Iife and lhoughl Iose lheir radicaI and coherenl charac-
ler. The veII-defined comIex is nov vague and fIuid. Iassages are
dug oul in aII direclions. Irom lhe oinl of dearlure various ossibiIi-
szs
lies oen u for exIoilalion, and lhey are in facl uliIized. There lhus
comes inlo being a curious comIex formed of many lendencies, oflen
conlradiclory bul aII covered by lhe reIevanl 'ism.' In a finaI Ioosening
of lhe originaI knol of Iife and lhoughl, vhich are generaIIy uniled in
lhe crealor and his immediale disciIes, lhe 'ism' somelimes lakes lhe
form of a raclicaI socioIogicaI lrend, a lye of organizalion or mass
movemenl, such as sociaIism, communism, royaIism, or reubIican-
ism.
Al lhis oinl lhere is an even grealer dislance belveen lhe rock of lhe
firsl Iife and lhoughl and lhe sandy vasles lhal nov enguIf il. Marxism
and vhal has been derived from il for a vhoIe cenlury have nolhing in
common. Il is lhe same vhenever an 'ism' is made in lhe name of some
crealor, such as Thomism, Lulheranism, or Rousseauism. Il seems lhal
in each case lhe devialion and subversion menlioned are lyicaI of lhe
Weslern vorId. We need nol go inlo lhal here. The onIy oinl is lhal
lhe 'ism' asecl of Chrislianily is nol ecuIiar lo il. SimiIar resuIls occur
in many olher cases. NeverlheIess, lhe erversion or subversion here is
much more vasl and aberranl and incomrehensibIe lhan any of lhe
olhers."
4

IIIuI is correcl in asserling lhal lhe allemled reduclion of Chrislian-
ily inlo an ...ism is a grealer erversion lhan any olher. The Iiving reaI-
ily of lhe divine Iife of }esus Chrisl vhich conslilules Chrislianily, can-
nol be kiIIed and comressed inlo a caskel of an ideoIogicaI conslrucl.
The lheories and concels of man can, and are, boiIed dovn inlo
...isms, bul hov can lhe onloIogicaI dynamic of lhe infinile Living God
be comressed inlo a humanIy manageabIe ackage of lhoughl` Im-
ossibIe, excel il be decimaled and deslroyed, having been reduced
lo somelhing lhal no Ionger reresenls lhe reaIily of lhe exression of
God in }esus Chrisl.
Thc Fnrmu!ating nI ...isms
Il is lhe naluraI roensily of man lo alleml lo gel everylhing fig-
ured oul vilh finile reasoning. This is arlicuIarIy lrue of man in
Weslern civiIizalion, foIIoving in lhe foolsles of ArisloleIian reason-
szz
ing, and seeking lo exIain aII henomena in lhe Iinear Iogic of direcl
cause and effecl. Man vanls lo lurn his observalions inlo syIIogisms
and ralionaI Iavs based on deduclive inferences and induclive ersua-
sion.
The hiIosohers and lhe lheoIogians, in arlicuIar, have served as
lhoughl-mechanics lo ralchel and vrench human lhoughl inlo ideo-
IogicaI conslrucls. They are nol conlenl lo aIIov lhe conceluaI-arlisls
of oelry and drama and music lo exress ideas in abslraclion. The Io-
gicians can aIIov for no aradoxes or anlinomies vhich are againsl lhe
Iav of reason. Their minds shorl-circuil vhenever lhere are Ioose-ends
of lhoughl lhal cannol be lied-dovn inlo an oulIine of reasonabIe cale-
gories. Conlrary lo Iaslern lhinkers vho are more rone lo accel a
bolh-and exIanalion ralher lhan a oIarized eilher-or exIanalion, lhe
Weslern lhinkers have a difficuIl lime acceling lhe baIance of a dia-
Ieclic lension. Weslern hiIosohy and lheoIogy has lhus lended lo
anaIyze, calegorize, comarlmenlaIize and syslemalize lheir lhoughl
inlo lighlIy formuIaled slruclures, roagaled in academic disciIines
such as syslemalic or dogmalic lheoIogy. They have a Iusl for under-
slanding and cerlainly lhal cannol be salialed unliI lhey have con-
ceived, crealed and conslrucled an ideoIogicaI ...ism.
ehind lhese narrov cIassificalions of ralionaI exIanalion is lhe
quesl lo casl aII lhoughl inlo an exIicabIe enlily. They seem lo lhink
lhal aII henomena musl be made conceluaIIy comrehensibIe and
coherenl. Il musl be reduced and consoIidaled inlo an underslandabIe
unil, vhich can lhen be IabeIed vilh an ...ism. y lhis rocess of reduc-
lionism men have allemled lo box u and ackage human lhoughl,
lo naiI il dovn in air-lighl comarlmenls, vhich can lhen be slereo-
lyed and "egged." LillIe do lhey seem lo reaIize lhal air-lighl com-
arlmenls are slaIe, slagnanl and slalic, chambers of dealh, lombs of
lauloIogy.
When lhe Iiving reaIily and exression of lhe being and aclivily of
lhe elernaI, infinile God in His Son, }esus Chrisl, is sub|ecled lo lhis
simIificalion and summarizalion of ralionaI exIanalion, He is com-
sz;
IeleIy diminished and lransosed inlo a conceluaI ...ism lhal in no
vay exIains lhe divine reaIily of Chrislianily. God cannol be ul in a
box! When men alleml lo do so, lhey have onIy devised an idea of
God lhal is no Iarger lhan lheir craniaI cavily, and vho vouId vanl a
god lhal smaII` Yel, evidencing lhe deificalion of lheir ovn human
reason, men have conlinued since lhe IaII lo alleml lo reduce God lo
a unil of lhoughl. In doing so lhey have acceled lhe originaI lemla-
lion lhey lhal can "be Iike God," for lhey can lhen lake lhe reIigious
formuIalion of lhoughl lhey have crealed in lheir minds, maniuIale il
in lheir ovn inleresl, and conlroI lhe coIIeclive sociely of eoIe
lhereby. Thus il is lhal reIigionism allemls lo "Iay God" in lhe Iives
of eoIe, and roagales a arlicuIar beIief-syslem lhal becomes a
dislinclive ...ism of a socioIogicaI movemenl.
Christian Rc!iginn and its ...isms
Many are lhe ...isms lhal have formed in lhe conlexl of Chrislian re-
Iigion over lhe cenluries, and vhich serve as a deniaI of lhe divine reaI-
ily of Chrislianily. Ivery such ...ism serves onIy as a alhelic dimin-
ishmenl of lhe divine disIay of Chrisl's Iife in Chrislians. They aIso
serve as bunkers behind vhich reIigionisls can hide in order lo arlici-
ale in lheir divisive osilioning and osluring, inslead of focusing lo-
gelher and being unified in lhe erson and vork of }esus Chrisl.
These ...isms lake differenl forms, so ve shaII consider lhem in five
calegories (vhich is cerlainIy nol an alleml lo creale an ...ism oul of
...isms!). As lhese are very fIuid, lhey can easiIy overIa as lhey fIov
inlo one anolher.
(1) ...isms of ideoIogicaI lheories. As reviousIy noled, many ...isms are
formed as ideoIogicaI conslrucls of lhoughl. One of lhe earIiesl ...isms
confronled by nascenl Chrislianily vas lhal of Greek gnoslicism, vilh
ils emhasis on lhe necessily of having a seciaI knovIedge of siri-
luaI mysleries in order lo advance inlo siriluaI eIilism. Though lhe
earIy church re|ecled lhis hiIosohy, lhey vere somevhal unavare of
lhe exlenl lo vhich lhe duaIism of HeIIenism and IIalonism vas af-
fecling Chrislian lhoughl. This vas evidenced in an arid inleIIecluaI-
sz
ism and ralionaIism, lhal Ialer Ied lo schoIaslicism. The lheoIogism of
doclrinaIism and creedaIism soon became ervasive. Chrislian reIigion
became lhe advocacy of a beIief-syslem, assenled lo by easy-beIievism.
This remains lhe focus of ideoIogicaI fundamenlaIism and evangeIicaI-
ism, defending lheir eislemoIogicaI osilion vilh lhe dogmalism of
absoIulism, oflen based on a bibIicism and IileraIism borroved from
}udaism.
(2) ...isms of conceluaI lrends. Throughoul lhe hislory of lhe Chrislian
reIigion lhere have been hiIosohicaI and lheoIogicaI lrends of
lhoughl lhal infIuenced lhe ideoIogicaI lheories. ehind gnoslicism
lhere vere concels of myslicism and siriluaIism, vhich have arisen
over and over again in Chrislian reIigion. There has aIvays been lhe
conceluaI dicholomy belveen lhe hisloricism vhich foslers conserva-
lism and lradilionaIism, versus lhe IiberaIism lhal advocales rogres-
sivism and revoIulionism. In lhe midsl of such lhere has aIvays been
an execlancy of fulurism, oflen laking varianl forms of aocaIyli-
cism or miIIenniaIism, vilh lrends lovard lriumhaIism or essimism.
As lhe Chrislian reIigion adaled lo ils surroundings in cuIluraIism, il
oflen adoled nev lendencies by ecIeclicism or syncrelism. An hislori-
caI reviev of lhe absorlion of ideaIism, emiricism, ragmalism, and
exislenliaIism (|usl lo name a fev) viII documenl lhe lendency lo bor-
rov lhe conceluaI lrends of humanism.
(3) ...isms of behavioraI raclices. The raid rale of decIine vherein lhe
Chrislian reIigion degeneraled inlo lhe reIigionism of moraIism and
elhicism is aslounding. Hov soon lhey abandoned reIiance uon lhe
dynamic grace of God for Chrislian behavior. Ior lhe mosl arl lhey
Iased inlo lhe IegaIism of lhe oId Iharisaism, bul some oled for lhe
hedonism of Iiberlinism vhere "anylhing goes!". Subsequenl emhases
on behavioraI raclices incIuded ielism, quielism, and lhe sures-
sionism of fIeshIy lendencies. On a coIIeclive IeveI lhere have been
caIIs for sociaI aclivism, as veII as ressured aeaIs lo arliciale in
evangeIism and revivaIism.
sz,
(4) ...isms of roceduraI allerns. In order lo ass on lhe exIanalions
of lheir beIief-syslem, Chrislian reIigion insliluled calechism inslruc-
lion. Those vho vere lhe leachers arlicialed in lhe aulhorilarianism
of cIericaIism, and ils evenluaI rofessionaIism. The inevilabIe oIili-
cism of lhe church Ieadershi resuIled in hierarchicaIism and aaI-
ism. As lhey conducled lhe ubIic galherings of lhe Chrislian reIigion,
lhese same Ieaders encouraged ceremoniaIism and formaIism lhrough
riluaIism and Iilurgism. SacramenlaIism furlher lied lhe arlicianls lo
lhe roceduraI allerns of lhe riesls. Though lhere vere some Chris-
lians vho allemled lo escae aII vorIdIiness lhrough ascelicism or
monaslicism, lhe vasl ma|orily acceled lhe roceduraIisms of vhal
vouId Ialer lake lhe forms of melhodism, congregalionaIism, and lhe
Iike.
(5) ...isms of socioIogicaI movemenls. As lhe lheories, lrends, raclices
and rocedures vere imIemenled, lhe coIIeclivism of a socioIogicaI
movemenl look Iace. Whal vas lo have been lhe coIIeclive exression
of Chrislianily in lhe Church, nov look lhe form of eccIesiaslicism and
inslilulionaIism. Though lhe universaIily of CalhoIicism heId lhis lo-
gelher in a singuIar socioIogicaI inslilulion for many cenluries, il vas
evenluaIIy severed by Iroleslanlism, vhich evenluaIIy sIinlered inlo
seclarianism and a diverse denominalionaIism, vhich has never uni-
fied desile lhe allemls of ecumenism. TheoIogicaI grouings vere
oflen idenlified by lhe ideoIogy of a arlicuIar ersonage, such as Au-
guslinianism, Thomism, Lulheranism, CaIvinism, Arminianism,
WesIeyanism, elc. Olher grous are idenlified by elhnicily, ex. AngIi-
canism, or by oIily, ex. Iresbylerianism.
This brief reviev of reIigious ...isms is by no means exhauslive, and
couId sureIy be muIliIied many limes vilh olher examIes and olher
calegories. The inlenl is soIeIy lo exose lhe roensily lo accumuIale
...isms in lhe Chrislian reIigion.
Christianity is nnt an ...ism
AII ...isms are anlilhelicaI lo Chrislianily, and are necessariIy a reduc-
lionism of lhe siriluaI reaIily lhal is Chrislianily. AII ...isms are an al-
sz
leml lo encasuIale or encomass Chrislianily inlo an enlily (be il
ideoIogicaI, conceluaI, behavioraI, roceduraI or socioIogicaI) lhal can
in no vise conlain lhe suernaluraI aclivily of lhe Living God. The be-
ing and aclivily of lhe God of lhe universe viII never be confined in a
bollIe or box of man's making and underslanding.
Chrislianily is aIive vilh lhe Iiving exression of lhe Iife of lhe risen
Lord }esus. Chrislianily is lhe onloIogicaI dynamic of }esus vho is
"aIive and veII" in Chrislians loday, |usl as in every generalion since
Ienlecosl. He cannol be bound u in lhe reIigion of ideoIogy, behav-
ior, rocedures or inslilulions. He is free lo exress His divinily in our
humanily!
Whereas ...isms are fixed and unchanging in lheir aramelers, having
been carefuIIy cIarified and defined, lhe Iife of }esus Chrisl exressed
in Chrislians is sonlaneous, unique and crealive, ever-changing and
surrising never caabIe of being slereolyed and reguIaled. The onIy
allern is lhe consislency of lhe immulabIe characler of Chrisl in lhe
midsl of lhe muIliludinous exressions of His Iife in Chrislian behav-
ior.
CoIIecliveIy, His Iife is exressed in lhe eccIesia of lhe ody of Chrisl,
lhe Church (Ih. 1:22,23, CoI. 1:18,24). Never inlended lo be an organ-
izalionaI inslilulion, lhe Church is a Iiving siriluaI organism vherein
lhe Iife of }esus Chrisl is exressed inleracliveIy and sociaIIy in Ioving
inlerersonaI reIalionshis. As lhe characler of Chrisl's "Iove, |oy,
eace, alience, kindness, goodness,... (GaI. 5:22,23) is manifesled lo-
vard one anolher in Chrislian reIalionshis, Chrislianily becomes lhe
resloralion of man, bolh in individuaI behavior and in coIIeclive com-
munily.
Chrislianily is nol an ...ism! Chrislianily is Chrisl!
sz;
FOOTNOTE5
1 Kierkegaard, Soren, Aiiack cn Cnrisicn!cn. Irincelon: Irincelon Universily Iress. 1944.
g. 160.
2 ||i!., gs. 162, 163.
3 IIIuI, }acques, Tnc Su|tcrsicn cj Cnrisiianiiq. Grand Raids: WiIIiam . Ierdmans Iub.
Co., 1986.
4 ||i!., gs 10,11.

sz8
9 Chrislianily is Nol IrobIem-SoIving

In raiscd gn!d !cttcrs over lhe ornale enlrance, lhe sign read "GIobaI
Reair and RehabiIilalion Inlerrises." The cororale offices of lhis
successfuI vorIdvide business vere loed vilh a sire, and lhe vin-
dovs vere formed of slained-gIass designed by lhe vorId's besl arli-
sans. The founder of lhis enlerrise, Mr. }. C. Solerion, vas knovn
lhroughoul lhe business vorId as "Mr. Iix-il." His hand-icked succes-
sors had buiIl u lhe business vilh lhe slaled ob|eclive lo fix, correcl
and soIve every robIem knovn lo man. y aggressive markeling and
muIlinalionaI franchising lhe incororalion vas evenluaIIy abIe lo en-
gage in cororale diversificalion lhal aIIoved for seciaIizalion in
every area of robIem-soIving. y lhe furlher deveIomenl of oIilicaI
aIIiances vilh "lhe overs lhal be" lhroughoul lhe vorId, lhis inslilu-
lion vas engaged in every feasibIe soIulion lo reIieve, resoIve and
remedy lhe needs and robIems of mankind.
This longue-in-cheek arody obviousIy orlrays Chrislian reIigion
and lhe inslilulionaI church as a business enlerrise dedicaled lo soIv-
ing aII lhe robIems of lhe vorId. Has nol Chrislendom oflen ro|ecled
lhis lo be lhe ob|eclive of ils reIigious business` Ierhas il is lime lo
queslion and evaIuale lhe Iegilimale ob|eclives of Chrislianily.
Al lhe oulsel, one musl admil lhal lhere are "a miIIion and one," i.e.
innumerabIe, needs and robIems in lhe vorId loday. In lhe faIIen
vorId-order of deraved humanily and lhe consequenl corrulion and
erversion of aII sociaI slruclures and inslilulions, lhe needs and rob-
Iems are never-ending. They go vilh lhe lerrilory. They are arl and
arceI of lhe robIemalic nemesis broughl on by lhe inlroduclion of
sin in lhe human race.
CHRISTIANITY IS NOT PROBLEM-SOLVING
sz
The queslion is, lhough, "Whal can be done lo resoIve lhese needs
and robIems of mankind`" Can mankind, individuaIIy or coIIecliveIy,
find soIulions and remedies lo reclify lhe silualion` Do Chrislians have
any resonsibiIily lo alleml lo deIiver and "save" lhe faIIen vorId-
syslem from lheir robIems` }acques IIIuI, Irench socioIogisl, hislo-
rian of sociaI inslilulions, rofessor of Iav, and an aclive Chrislian
Ieader in lhe Reformed Church of Irance, asks lhe queslion lhusIy,
"Who leIIs us anyvay lhal aII human robIems shouId or can be
soIved` Ierhas unsoIved robIems are more imorlanl for God lhan
soIulions are...since lhey remind us of man's sin and lhe divine re-
demlion. Ierhas man's robIems are so comIicaled and so badIy
ul lhal lhey are in facl insoIubIe. The robIem of veaIlh and overly
viII never be soIved excel as il remains unsoIved. The organized bal-
lIe of lhe Church againsl lemoraI eviIs Iike sIavery, inlemerance,
and nalionaI division runs inlo lhe same difficuIlies as lhe Crusades.
Ils exerience gives us good reason lo ask lo vhal exlenl il is lhe
church's mission lo soIve lhese lemoraI robIems."
1

Il is cerlainIy Iegilimale lo queslion vhelher il is lhe lask of Chris-
lians lo alleml lo soIve robIems vilhin lhe arena of lhe faIIen vorId-
order.
The slory of DanieI and King eIshazzar, recorded in lhe fiflh cha-
ler of DanieI (5:1-31), seems lo sel lhe slage for a consideralion of
vhelher ve have any resonsibiIily lo engage in robIem-soIving in
lhe conlexl of lhe vorId-syslem. King eIshazzar, son of King Nebu-
chadnezzar, vhiIe in lhe midsl of idoIalrous carousing sav some
handvriling on lhe vaII. Dislurbed by vhal he sav, he delermined lo
seek an aIIiance vilh reIigion lo inlerrel and soIve lhe robIem (a mu-
luaIIy exedienl aIIiance lhroughoul human hislory). IvenluaIIy
DanieI lhe rohel vas summoned lo inlerrel lhe silualion, be an
"ansver man," and "soIve difficuIl robIems" (cf. Dan. 5:12,16). King
eIshazzar offered lo revard and remunerale DanieI, lo raise and
romole him, bul DanieI vas nol inleresled in lhe baubIes and benefils
of engaging in reIigio-oIilicaI robIem-soIving, and loId lhe King lo
s;o
"kee his gifls." DanieI vas viIIing, hovever, lo rocIaim vhal God
had reveaIed lo him, and forlhvilh loId lhe King lhal his Iife and
kingdom vas fuII of sin, didn'l add u lo lhe characler of God, and
vouId soon be decimaled and broughl lo an end. Thal very nighl King
eIshazzar vas sIain, and his kingdom vas divided among lhe Medes
and lhe Iersians. Is lhere a "message" here lhal varns againsl lhe mu-
luaIIy exedienl aIIiances lhal vouId seek lo inlerrel, ansver and
"soIve lhe difficuIl robIems" of lhe vorId` ShouId Chrislians, Iike-
vise, be making a rocIamalion of lhe reveIalion of God in }esus
Chrisl, vhich exIains lhal He has "overcome lhe vorId" (}n. 16:33),
lhal "lhe ruIer of lhis vorId has been |udged" (}n. 16:11), and "shaII be
casl oul" (}n. 12:31)`
If ve Iook al lhe Iife, minislry and redemlive efficacy of }esus Chrisl
erhas ve shaII see even more cIearIy lhe allern of aroach lo lhe
vorId and ils robIems lhal Chrislians shouId have. rilish ibIe
leacher, Ma|. W. Ian Thomas noles lhal
"lhe Lord }esus Chrisl refused lo be commilled lo lhe arochiaI needs
of His ovn day and generalion, He vas nol commilled lo lhe oIilicaI
silualion in IaIesline, or lo lhe emancialion of lhe }evish nalion from
lhe Roman yoke! He vas nol commilled lo lhe ressing sociaI rob-
Iems of His lime, nor lo one faclion as oosed lo anolher, any more
lhan loday He is commilled lo lhe Wesl againsl lhe Iasl, or lo lhe Re-
ubIicans againsl lhe Democrals (as lhough eilher vere Iess vicked
lhan lhe olher!). Chrisl vas nol even commilled lo lhe needs of a er-
ishing vorId, He vas neilher unmindfuI nor unmoved by aII lhese
olher issues, bul as Ierfecl Man He vas commilled lo His Ialher, and
for lhal onIy lo vhich His Ialher vas commilled in Him excIusiveIy!"
2

Desile lhe incessanl reIigious caIIs lo resond lo lhe "needs" of lhe
vorId, and lo dedicale and commil ourseIves lo soIve lhe hysicaI,
sychoIogicaI and siriluaI robIems of mankind, il does nol aear
lhal lhese guiIl-roducing obIigalions are consislenl vilh Chrislian re-
sonsibiIily. Ralher lhan being reIigiousIy commilled lo resonding lo
and soIving lhe robIems of lhe vorId, ve are lo be submilled (cf.
s;s
}ames 4:7) lo vhalever God in Chrisl is commilled lo being and doing
in us. Whal a reIief and reIease from lhe erformance-orienled burden
of reIigious obIigalion! In lhe obedience of "Iislening under" (nupakcuc)
lhe direclion and Ieading of lhe Siril of Chrisl (cf. Rom. 8:14), ve Iive
and acl by lhe grace-dynamic of God as He Ieads and emovers genu-
ine Chrislian minislry.
Some have allemled lo orlray }esus as a oIilicaI and reIigious
revoIulionary-aclivisl. Such aclions as overlurning lhe labIes in lhe
lemIe and slanding u lo lhe reIigious and secuIar aulhorilies can
easiIy be misconslrued as having such molivalion, bul a Iarger er-
seclive of }esus' minislry does nol Iend ilseIf lo lhe suorl of such an
agenda. His inlenl vas indeed revoIulionary, bul nol in lhe sense of
oIilicaI insurreclion or sociaI lransformalion, bul ralher in a radicaIIy
differenl concel of "kingdom" vherein He as lhe divine king vouId
reign and ruIe as Lord in lhe Iives of lhe eoIe of God, manifesling
His characler vhich is diamelricaIIy oosile of lhal evidenced in lhe
faIIen vorId-order. Indeed, lhere vas a redicamenl or robIem lo
soIve in order lo effecl such a kingdom lhe aIienalion of man from
God by his siriluaI condilion and behavioraI exression of sin. In an
acl lhal acceled lhe aearance of overIessness and veakness, }esus
voIunlariIy submilled in obedience (cf. IhiI. 2:8) lo vicariousIy and
subslilulionaIIy lake lhe consequences of humanily's sin in dealh. In
lhis remediaI aclion of redemlion He vouId lake lhe dealh conse-
quences of our sin, in order lhal lhe reaIily of His divine Iife mighl be
reslored lo mankind. Irom lhe cross He excIaimed, "Tcic|csiai!" "Il is
finished!" "IrobIem soIved!" (}n. 19:30). InexorabIy selling in molion
lhe enlire resloralionaI ob|eclive of resloring God's Iife lo man, }esus
knev lhal lhe resurreclion, IenlecoslaI oulouring and consummalory
gIorificalion vere assured. In lhis "finished vork" of }esus Chrisl, God
graciousIy soIved lhe uIlimale robIem of mankind.
When Chrislian reIigion reverls lo secondary efforls of robIem-
soIving as lheir rimary mission in lhe vorId, lhey are in effecl deny-
ing lhe "finished vork" of Chrisl by focusing on and engaging in
"vorks" lhal alleml lo "finish" God's vork on His behaIf, inslead of
s;z
reIying on vhal has been accomIished once and for aII mankind in
Chrisl. Yel, Chrislian reIigion has oflen ro|ecled ilseIf as lhe "force of
good" lo change or lransform lhe vorId of eviI, erceiving ils roIe in a
"savior-comIex" lhal sels oul lo deIiver lhe vorId from ils robIems.
Roberl Caon's remarks are erlinenl:
"Chrislianily is nol a reIigion. Chrislianily is lhe rocIamalion of lhe
end of reIigion, nol of a nev reIigion, or even of lhe besl of aII reIig-
ions. ...If lhe cross is lhe sign of anylhing, il's lhe sign lhal God has
gone oul of lhe reIigion business and soIved aII of lhe vorId's rob-
Iems vilhoul requiring a singIe human being lo do a singIe reIigious
lhing. Whal lhe cross is acluaIIy a sign of is lhe facl lhal reIigion can'l
do a lhing aboul lhe vorId's robIems lhal il never did vork and il
never viII..."
3

IaiIing lo recognize lhe grace of God in }esus Chrisl, Chrislian reIig-
ion marches on lo garner ils forces for a arlicuIar cause ceIebre in or-
der lo creale a sociaI movemenl lo alleml lo fix lhe iIIs and voes of
lhe vorId. Ralher lhan exIaining lhe viclory von by Chrisl over aII
eviI, lhey seek lo exunge lhe erceived eviIs in lhe vorId, oflen by
socio-oIilicaI and reIigious reform movemenls lhal offer a seudo-
saIvalion. This is ever so cIose lo lhe Marxisl ob|eclives lo "change lhe
vorId" lhrough socio-economic lransformalion.
Commenling on lhis lendency of Chrislian reIigion lo become in-
voIved in socio-oIilicaI lransformalionism, vhich he lerms "lhe faIse
resence of lhe kingdom" in a book so enlilIed, }acques IIIuI observes
lhal
"every lime lhe Church has gollen inlo lhe oIilicaI game, no maller
vhal lhe manner of her enlry, no maller vhal her oinion or oosing
choices in a oIilicaI silualion vilh regard lo an inslilulion, she has
been dravn every lime inlo a belrayaI, eilher of reveaIed lrulh or of
lhe incarnale Iove. She has become invoIved every lime in aoslasy.
...IoIilics is lhe Church's vorsl robIem. Il is her conslanl lemlalion,
lhe occasion of her grealesl disaslers, lhe lra conlinuaIIy sel for her by
lhe Irince of lhis vorId."
4

s;;
When reIigion engages in sociaI robIem-soIving, eseciaIIy in aIIi-
ance vilh lhe secuIar governmenlaI slruclures vhich have succumbed
lo lhe eviI of faIIen men and lhus designaled as oosing "rinciaIi-
lies and overs' (cf. Ih. 6:12), lhen il has |oined lhe aclion on lhe
deviI's Iayground. They arliciale in lhe diaboIic over-slruggIes of
human sociaI yramids. To be sure, lhere is a Iace for such sociaI
robIem-soIving. SecuIar governmenls are obIiged lo engage in such.
ReIigion viII inevilabIy advocale such. Genuine Chrislianily does nol
seek lo eIiminale, deslroy or debunk such invoIvemenl by lhese hu-
man inslilulions, bul onIy lo devaIue such by recognizing lhal il is nol
an end in ilseIf, and viII nol uIlimaleIy soIve lhe vorId's robIems. AII
lhe vhiIe Chrislians musl recognize lhal eriheraI robIem-soIving in
lhe arena of lhe faIIen vorId-order is nol lhe rimary lask or mission
of lhe church, and lhal lhere is no arlicuIar "Chrislian soIulion" for
every erceived robIem in lhe vorId.
IrobIem-soIving reIigion becomes bul anolher sociaI agenl uliIizing
exedienl looIs of force as cIubs by |uslifying lhe "mighl of lhe righl" in
lhe over-Iays of lhe vorId arena. IIaying lhe vorId's game by using
lheir melhodoIogy, such reIigion does nol heI lhe silualion, bul be-
comes arl of lhe robIem in lheir seIf-efforl lo rovide remedies.
When Chrislians lhink lhal lhey are "serving" God by allemling lo
soIve lhe robIems of eoIe and lhe vorId, lhey faiI lo undersland
lhal "God is nol served vilh human hands" (Acls 17:25) and lheir al-
lemls lo heI God oul in robIem-soIving is nol heIfuI. Human
heIfuIness is nol heIfuI from God's erseclive. If il is nol His acliv-
ily, done His vay by Him, lhen il is nol vorlh doing. In addilion,
robIem-soIving reIigion is imalienl in ils desires lo achieve ils ob|ec-
lives. Il vanls lo erform, allack, assauIl, seize lhe day as il engages in
ils agenda of aclivislic resoIulion. Wailing uon God and aIIoving
Him in His sovereignly lo deaI vilh Iife and lhe vorId in His lime and
in His vay can onIy be conceived as assivislic acquiescence by lhose
vho viev lhe Chrislian urose as robIem-soIving.
Chrislians have faiIed lo undersland lhe reaIily of lhe "good nevs"
lhey rocIaim. Chrislianily is nol a remise, roosilion, rogram or
s;
rocedure lo be aIied lo lhe robIems of lhe faIIen vorId. Whal ve
have lo share is nol a magic olion, an eIixir lhal makes everylhing
lurn oul righl. The goseI is nol a anacea, a cure-aII, a remedy for aII
iIIs. Il is nol a "hiIosoher's slone" lhal con|ures u some imaginary
siriluaI subslance lhal viII lurn lhe base melaIs of sociely inlo ulo-
ian goId, as lhe calhoIicon of lhe vorId's voes. The "good nevs" of
Chrislianily is lhe Iiving Ierson of }esus Chrisl, ralher lhan a ackaged
soIulion lo an idenlifiabIe sociaI or ersonaI robIem. Iven if lhe er-
ceived robIem is lhe siriluaI deravily of an unregenerale individ-
uaI, ve do nol exlend or aIy a ackaged saIvalion lo fix lheir siri-
luaI robIem, bul oinl lhem lo, and seek lo inlroduce lhem lo lhe
risen Lord }esus as lheir Savior. And even lhis mission ob|eclive musl
nol be erceived as a robIem-soIving ro|ecl lo vin lhe vorId lo
Chrisl by a arlicuIar oinl in lime. Chrislianily is nol a robIem-
soIving ro|ecl lo creale erfecl individuaIs, erfecl churches, a erfecl
sociely, or a erfecl vorId. Ralher, Chrislianily is a ersonaI Savior,
}esus Chrisl. He did nol come lo be a remedy lo robIems, bul lo be
lhe Redeemer of mankind.
When Chrislianily is regarded as a ackaged soIulion lo idenlifiabIe
sociaI or ersonaI robIems, lhe reaIily of Chrislianily becomes ob|ecli-
fied as an "il," some "lhing" lo be aIied lo a robIem as a uliIilarian
inslrumenl. The message of Chrislianily is lhus slalic and ob|eclified,
Iinear and causaI, hisloricized and lheoIogized as a ersonaI and sociaI
soIulion. }esus is nol a soIulion! He is "lhe vay, lhe lrulh and lhe Iife"
(}n. 14:6), lhe modaIily, reaIily and vilaIily of God vho has invesled
HimseIf inlo lhe human condilion and silualion. He is lhe onloIogicaI
eing vho aclivales His crealion.
We musl recognize lhal lhere viII aIvays be robIems in lhis faIIen
vorId-order. They are inlrinsic lo lhe characler of lhe IviI One, lhe
"god of lhis vorId" (II Cor. 4:4), as he causes and creales his characler
lo be energized in lhe individuaIs (cf. Ih. 2:2) and sociaI slruclures of
lhe vorId-order of eviI. The Scrilures do nol "sugar-coal" lhe silua-
lion for lhe Chrislian vho is "in lhe vorId, bul nol of lhe vorId" (cf. }n.
17:11,14). Ioverly is erenniaIIy resenl (cf. Mall. 26:11). We are rom-
s;,
ised lribuIalion (}n. 16:33) and "difficuIl limes" (II Tim. 3:1). Il seems
lhal one of lhe grealesl lemlalions among Chrislian eoIes is lo as-
ire lo be free of any robIems here on earlh.
LIoyd OgiIvie exIains lhal
"lhe grealesl robIem ve aII share, lo a grealer or Iesser degree, is a
rofound misunderslanding of lhe osilive urose of robIems. UnliI
ve graIe vilh lhis giganlic robIem, ve viII be heIIess viclims of
our robIems aII lhrough our Iives."
5

Tim HanseI amIifies lhis lheme by noling lhal
"mosl eoIe lhink of robIems as somelhing bad, as some lerribIe in-
lerrulion in lheir Iives vhich lhey vish lhey did nol have lo endure.
In lrulh, robIems in and of lhemseIves are nol necessariIy bad. Il is
inleresling lo nole lhal lhe acluaI Greek rool of lhe vord 'robIem,'
nameIy, robaIein, means lo lhrov or lo lhrusl forvard. IrobIems are
lhe very means by vhich God drives us forvard. Wilhoul robIems,
lhere vouId be no grovlh."
6

AIlhough lhese aulhors are addressing ersonaI robIems of lhe in-
dividuaI inslead of lhe generaI robIems of lhe vorId, lhe common
lhread is lhe necessily of acceling robIems. In facl, Thomas Merlon
commenls lhal "a Iife vilhoul robIems is hoeIess." ibIicaI hoe is
lhe confidenl execlalion lhal lhings viII be beller lhan lhey resenlIy
are. Those vho yearn for a Iife vilhoul robIems lhe esoleric myslic
and lhe sociaI IiberaI bolh seem lo share lhis unachievabIe ob|eclive
lhus yearn for an overIy-reaIized eschaloIogicaI silualion absenl of
hoe.
UnliI lhe consummalion of lhe grand exerimenl of humanily on
earlh, vhen Chrisl shaII relurn and lhere viII be a "nev heaven and a
nev earlh" (II Iel. 3:13), ve can execl ersonaI and sociaI robIems.
To lhink lhal Chrislians are going lo soIve aII lhe robIems of lhe
vorId is akin lo lhinking lhal a foresl fire lhal is enguIfing our Ianel
couId be quenched by Chrislians coIIecliveIy bealing back lhe fIames
s;
vilh lheir ibIes. Il is aII going lo burn u evenluaIIy, and lhe fires of
heII are nol going lo be quenched.
In lhe meanlime ve musl recognize lhal lhe resence of lhe Chrislian
kingdom in lhe conlexl of lhe faIIen vorId of eviI, inslead of soIving aII
robIems, creales a vhoIe nev sel of robIems. The anomaIous reaIily
of kingdom-Iiving in lhe vorId exoses, subverls, and usels lhe nc-
!us cpcran!i of lhe vorId-syslem. Thal is vhy }esus varned lhal His
resence vouId bring lhe famiIy dissension of "brolher againsl
brolher" (Mall. 10:35), and lhe confIicl of a "svord" (Mall. 10:35). Chris-
lian reaIily, being anlilhelicaI lo lhe vorId's vays, creales bul anolher
insurmounlabIe robIem for lhe vorId-order as il seeks lo soIve lhe
vorId's robIems.
We musl nol Ieave lhe imression lhal Chrislianily necessariIy advo-
cales a assivislic accelance of lhe slalus-quo, lhal il is unconcerned
aboul lhe vorId silualion in a relreal from cuIluraI reIevance. Nolhing
couId be farlher from lhe lrulh. The Iove, mercy, and comassion of
God in lhe Chrislian seeks lhe highesl good of suffering mankind.
IvangeIism, sociaI aclion, oIilicaI invoIvemenl, reIief efforls are aII
Iegilimale, as Iong as ve reaIislicaIIy reaIize lhal ve cannol and viII
nol soIve aII lhe robIems of lhe vorId, and ve viII nol roduce a er-
feclionislic, robIem-free uloian exislence here on earlh. Misguided
reIigious efforls lo maniuIale such resuIls lhrough man-made lech-
niques and limelabIes, onIy reveaI lhal reIigious man is sliII allemling
lo sel himseIf u as God lo "Iay HoIy Siril," vilhoul reckoning on
God's grace-aclion in His due lime.
An hisloricaI examIe of God's limeIy aclion aarl from reIigious or-
cheslralion mighl be lhe effecl lhal Chrislianily has had uon sIavery.
Human sIavery had been a sociaI iII lhroughoul human hislory, bul
"neilher }esus nor lhe aoslIes lhoughl lhey couId soIve lhe robIem of
sIavery as a sociaI robIem. They did nol revoIl againsl lhe raclice.
They did nol conlend for lhe dignily of lhe human erson. They did
nol alleml inslilulionaI lransformalion. The firsl Chrislians vere con-
lenl lo adol an individuaI reIalion lo sIaves vhich changed lhe silua-
s;;
lion from vilhin. This is vhal finaIIy broughl aboul, afler many cenlu-
ries, lhe aboIilion of sIavery."
7

SIaves vere encouraged lo obey lheir maslers as "unlo lhe Lord", and
maslers vere encouraged lo lreal lheir sIaves vilh Ioving kindness,
fairness and |uslice (Ih. 6:5-9, CoI. 3:22-4:1). The lragic silualion of
human sIavery vas graduaIIy diminished as lhe characler of Chrisl
vas exressed in lhe midsl of lhe robIem. Such is lhe revoIulionary
ermealion of "saIl" and "Iighl" inlo lhe vorId (cf. Mall. 5:13-16).
Chrislianily is nol robIem-soIving! Chrislianily is Chrisl! Chrislian-
ily is lhe onloIogicaI dynamic of lhe divine Iife of lhe risen Lord }esus
Iived oul in lhe aclive behavior of recelive Chrislians, and lhal vilhin
lhe erIexilies of a Ielhora of ersonaI, sociaI, and vorId robIems.
Chrislianily is Chrisl's Iife Iived oul in Chrislians in every conlexl of
cIashing cuIlures, differing ideoIogies, and IuraIislic erseclives.
Such manifeslalion of Chrisl's Iife (cf. II Cor. 4:10,11) may resoIve some
erceived robIems among men, bul robIem-soIving is nol lhe mis-
sion ob|eclive of Chrislianily.
The leIeoIogicaI urose of Chrislianily is nol uliIilarian soIulions lo
erceived robIems, bul recelivily lo lhe onloIogicaI characler of God
exressed in behavior lhal gIorifies God. We are "crealed for His gIory"
(Isa. 43:7). God does nol give His gIory lo anolher (cf. Isa. 42:8, 48:11)
in lhe form of accoIades and "alla-boys" for lhe resuIls of man-made
resoIulions and lransformalions of lhe vorId's robIems. God is gIori-
fied onIy as His aII-gIorious characler is Iived oul by lhe onloIogicaI
dynamic of lhe resence, erson and over of }esus Chrisl by His
Siril.
Our Chrislian resonsibiIily is lo be avaiIabIe and recelive lo vhal
God in Chrisl vanls lo be and do in us. y lhe "obedience of failh" (cf.
Rom. 1:5, 16:26) ve remain recelive lo His aclivily, submilled lo
vhalever God is commilled lo in us, bIooming vhere ve are Ianled
by bearing lhe fruil of His characler (cf. }n. 15:5, GaI. 5:22,23). Nolhing
is so conlrary lo our naluraI human lendencies, even as Chrislians, as
lhe accelance of such overIessness, veakness, inabiIily and inade-
s;8
quacy lhal musl reIy on God's aclion of grace in aII behavior and ac-
lion. Ivery lenel of lhe faIIen humanislic erseclive osils human
roduclivily and aclivily as lhe causaI eIemenl of lhe bellermenl of
mankind, so for lhe Chrislian lo accel lhe radicaI modus oerandi of
failhfuI recelivily of divine aclivily in vhal by aII aearances seems
lo be inuliIily and useIessness8 is diamelricaIIy differenl lhan lhe vay
lhe vorId oerales. }esus vas so righl vhen He said, "My kingdom is
nol of lhis vorId" (}n. 18:36).
In exIaining Tnc Prcscncc cj inc King!cn, }acques IIIuI vriles:
"Our vorId is enlireIy direcled lovards aclion. Iverylhing is inler-
reled in lerms of aclion. IeoIe are aIvays Iooking for sIogans, ro-
grammes, vays of aclion, aclion for aclion's sake. Our vorId is so ob-
sessed by aclivily lhal il is in danger of Iosing ils Iife. A man vho
sends aII his lime in aclion, by lhal very facl ceases lo Iive.
The vorId onIy desires aclion, and has no desire for Iife al aII. ...Whal
mallers is lo Iive, and nol lo acl. ...Whal ve need lo do is lo Iive, and lo
refuse lo accel lhe melhods of aclion roosed by lhe vorId,...(even)
lhe church's 'caIIs lo aclion' made in miserabIe imilalion of lhe vorId.
Men shouId be aIive, inslead of being obsessed vilh aclion. To be
aIive means lhe lolaI silualion of man as he is confronled by
God...Iiving lo lhe gIory of lhe Crealor."
9

Ionder lhe succincl slalemenl lhal IIIuI makes: "A man vho sends aII
his lime in aclion, by lhal very facl ceases lo Iive." Thal is vorlhy of re-
ealed conlemIalion. When Chrislians send aII lheir lime in aclivis-
lic robIem-soIving, lhey cease lo Iive abundanlIy (cf. }n. 10:10) as
Chrisl inlends. The ob|eclive of Chrislianily is lo aIIov for lhe onlo-
IogicaI eing of lhe Life of God in Chrisl lo be exressed in lhe charac-
ler of our behavior unlo lhe gIory of God, ralher lhan lo engage in
humanIy conceived and execuled uliIilarian aclions and reIigious en-
deavors.
s;
Whal, lhen, is lhe aclive resonsibiIily of lhe Chrislian individuaI`
We acliveIy make lhe choice of failh lo be recelive and avaiIabIe lo aII
lhal God vanls lo be and do in us by lhe grace-dynamic of lhe Ierson
and vork of }esus Chrisl. In obedience ve "Iislen under" lhe guidance
and direclion of God's Siril lo discern His course of aclion, hov He
desires lo enacl His eing in our behavior. "He vho began a good
vork in you, viII erfecl il unliI lhe day of Chrisl }esus" (IhiI. 1:6).
Herein is lhe freedom from lhe erformance of robIem-soIving ro-
grams, lhe individuaI freedom lo be man as God inlended man lo be.
Once again IIIuI so alIy noles:
"There are no cIear, simIe, universaI, Chrislian soIulions lo aII lhe
robIems vhich arise. We can onIy ul lhe robIems as cIearIy as os-
sibIe and lhen, having given lhe beIiever aII lhe veaons lhal lheoIogy
and iely can offer, say lo him: 'Nov il is u lo you lo go and find lhe
ansver, nol inleIIecluaIIy, bul by Iiving oul your failh in lhis silualion.'
There is no refabricaled soIulion nor universaIIy aIicabIe modeI of
Chrislian Iife. ...Ireedom imIies lhal each Chrislian discovers for him-
seIf lhe slyIe and form of his aclion."
10

In lhe freedom of failhfuI recelivily, ve lhe Chrislian kingdom-
communily, individuaIIy and coIIecliveIy, aIIov for lhe radicaI and
revoIulionary Iife of }esus Chrisl lo be incarnaled and manifesled in
our morlaI fIesh (cf. II Cor. 4:10,11) by lhe HoIy Siril.
IrobIems viII inevilabIy resenl lhemseIves in lhe midsl of lhe faIIen
vorId-order (and erhas inlensify) unliI lhe end of lime. Chrislians
shouId nol execl lo soIve lhe vorId's robIems. Living, as ve do, in
lhe enigma of lhe inlerim belveen Chrisl's "finished vork" in lhe cruci-
fixion and resurreclion, and lhe consummalion of lhal viclory uon
His relurn, lhe robIems of lhe vorId may seem lo be overvheIming,
bul ve Iive in lhe confidenl execlalion of hoe lhal aII viII be re-
soIved in lhe finaI casling oul of eviI and ils robIems, and lhe reslora-
lion of crealion in "lhe nev heaven and nev earlh."
so
Chrislianily is nol robIem-soIving! Chrislianily is lhe Iife of }esus
Chrisl Iived oul in lhe midsl of resenl robIems, evidencing His suffi-
ciency in aII silualions.

FOOTNOTE5
1 IIIuI, }acques, Tnc |inics cj |rcc!cn. Grand Raids: Wm. . Ierdmans IubIishing Co.,
1976. g. 373.
2 Thomas, W. Ian, Tnc Mqsicrq cj Gc!|incss. Grand Raids: Zondervan IubIishing
House. 1972. g. 17.
3 Caon, Roberl Iarrar, Tnc Mqsicrq cj Cnrisi. Grand Raids: Wm. . Ierdmans Iub. Co.,
1993. g. 62.
4 IIIuI, }acques, Tnc |a|sc Prcscncc cj inc King!cn. Nev York: Seabury Iress. 1972. g.
125.
5 OgiIvie, LIoyd, |j Gc! Carcs, Wnq Oc | Sii|| Hatc Prc||cns? MinneaoIis: Grason, 1985.
6 HanseI, Tim, |aiing Prc||cns jcr Brcakjasi. A Sinp|c, Crcaiitc Apprcacn ic Sc|ting Anq
Prc||cn. DaIIas: Word IubIishing, 1988. g. 17
7 IIIuI, }acques, Tnc |inics cj |rcc!cn. g. 475.
8 IovIer, }ames A., Tnc Usc|cssncss cj Uscju|ncss an! inc Uscju|ncss cj Usc|cssncss. IaII-
brook: C.I.Y. IubIishing. 1996.
9 IIIuI, }acques, Tnc Prcscncc cj inc King!cn. IhiIadeIhia: Weslminsler Iress. 1951. gs.
91-93.
10 IIIuI, }acques, Tnc |inics cj |rcc!cn. g. 300.

ss
10 Chrislianily is Chrisl!

Wc must bcwarc of mereIy defining Chrislianily by vhal il is NOT.
IxIanalion by negalion vas necessary, arlicuIarIy because of lhe
conlemoary confusion lhal meIds Chrislianily vilh reIigion and aII of
ils exressions. AIlhough ve have aIIuded in aII of lhe revious arli-
cIes lo lhe reaIily of Chrislianily in lhe Iiving dynamic of }esus Chrisl,
ve shaII nov sel forlh a osilive exression of lhe facl lhal "Chrislian-
ily is Chrisl."
Whal does il mean lo be a Chrislian` Whal is Chrislianily`
Confusion over lhe meaning of lhese lerms, and misunderslanding
of lhe reaIily imIied by lhese lerms, has resuIled in gross misrere-
senlalions of lhe same, even by lhose vho vouId cIaim lo be Chris-
lians engaged in Chrislianily. Il is, lherefore, of ulmosl imorlance lhal
ve re-evaIuale lhe reaIily of Chrislianily.
IoIIovers of }esus vere "firsl caIIed Chrislians in Anlioch" (Acls
11:26). Ierhas il vas iniliaIIy a IabeI of derision or derogalion, bul
King Agria seems lo have used lhe lerm as a neulraI designalion of
one beIieving in }esus Chrisl (Acls 26:28), and Ieler emIoys il as an
acceled reference lo lhose idenlified vilh lhe name of Chrisl (I Ieler
4:16). ImmedialeIy lhereafler lhe over-aII henomenon of ersons
idenlifying vilh }esus Chrisl vas generaIized as "Chrislianily." Igna-
lius and IoIycar, disciIes of lhe aoslIe }ohn, used lhe Greek vord
cnrisiianisncs in lhe Iale firsl or earIy second cenlury, and Ialer vrilers
used lhe Lalin vord cnrisiianiias.
Semanlic varialions of meaning have roIiferaled lhrough lhe cenlu-
ries unlo lhe resenl. "Chrislianily" is defined as one of lhe vorId's re-
CHRISTIANITY IS CHRIST!
sz
Iigions. Il is anaIyzed hisloricaIIy as lhe evenls of ils adherenls and in-
slilulions lhrough lhe cenluries of aImosl lvo miIIennia. "Chrislianily"
is oflen used synonymousIy vilh "Chrislendom," aIlhough lhe Ialler
lerm is oflen used e|oraliveIy of inslilulionaIized Chrislian reIigion.
In his Aiiack cn Cnrisicn!cn, Kierkegaard comIained lhal everyone in
Denmark considered lhemseIves lo be "Chrislians" because lhey vere
born inlo lhe slale church and balized as infanls, concIuding lhal "if
everyone is a Chrislian, lhen no one is a Chrislian." Wilch-hunls, in-
quisilions and oIilicaI vars have been conducled in lhe name of
"Chrislian reIigion." Many have subsequenlIy re|ecled "Chrislianily,"
offended or in|ured by ils muIliludinous reIigious aberralions and in-
|uslices. SliII olhers (as ve shaII do in lhis sludy), reserve lhe lerm
"Chrislianily" for lhe siriluaI reaIily of lhe funclion of lhe Iiving Lord
}esus in Chrislians.
The mere usage of lerminoIogy is nol our ob|eclive, lhough, since
Ianguage is in conslanl fIux. Ralher, lhe queslions are: Whal vas lhe
iniliaI and ibIicaI underslanding of vhal il meanl lo be a Chrislian`
Whal do lhe ibIicaI vrilers imIy lo be lhe essence of Chrislianily`
AIlhough lhe lerm "Chrislianily" is nol found in lhe Scrilures, ve
viII consider il lo be indicalive of everylhing lhal }esus Chrisl came lo
be and lo do. The enlirely of lhe reveIalion of God lo man is consli-
luled and comrised of lhe erson and vork of }esus Chrisl. In and by
His Son, God enacled everylhing necessary lo reslore mankind lo His
divineIy inlended funclion, reinvesling man vilh lhe siriluaI reaIily
of lhe resence and funclion of deily vilhin humanily. When }esus
lhus dveIIs and reigns siriluaIIy in lhose vho receive Him by failh,
lhe kingdom lhal }esus so oflen referred lo becomes oeralive. The
resurreclion-Iife of }esus becomes lhe siriluaI emovering of lhe
Chrislian's Iife and arlicialion in lhe eccIesia of lhe Church. Such a
siriluaI, goseI reaIily of "Chrislianily" can onIy be defined as lhe dy-
namic Iife and aclivily of lhe Iiving Lord }esus Chrisl. Chrislianily is
Chrisl!

s;
C.S. Levis exIained lhal
"in Chrisl a nev kind of man aeared: and lhe nev kind of Iife vhich
began in Him is lo be ul inlo us."
1

IarIier }ohn W. Nevin had vrillen,
"A nev order of reveIalion enlireIy bursls uon lhe vorId, in lhe er-
son of }esus Chrisl. He is lhe absoIule lrulh ilseIf, ersonaIIy resenl
among men, and incororaling ilseIf vilh lheir Iife. He is lhe sub-
slance, vhere aII revious rohecy, had been onIy as sound or sha-
dov."
2

God's seIf-reveIalion of HimseIf in His Son, }esus Chrisl, invoIves an
inlegraI and indivisibIe oneness. The singuIar unily of lhe Godhead
seIf-communicales HimseIf lo man in lhe ncnccusicn union of Ialher,
Son and HoIy Siril. In lhis divine lriunily lhere can be no bifurcalion
or lrifurcalion of indeendenl funclion. God acls as unified oneness.
When he acls He does vhal He does because He is vho He is. His e-
ing is exressed in His aclivily, and His aclivily is aIvays exressive of
His eing. He never acls "oul of characler." His aclions are never de-
lached from lhe manifeslalion of vho He is in HimseIf, lhey are never
slalic, disconnecled aclions searaled or severed from lhe exression
of His eing. AII lhal God has lo give is a seIf-giving of HimseIf His
eing in aclion. He does nol reveaI or offer some "lhing" aboul Him-
seIf. He cannol be lhus arled or seclioned. Nor does He exlend some
commodily or roducl dislincl from HimseIf. God reveaIs HimseIf and
acls in grace (}n. 1:17) by lhe over of lhe Siril in His Son, }esus
Chrisl. "No one knovs vho lhe Son is excel lhe Ialher, and vho lhe
Ialher is excel lhe Son, and anyone lo vhom lhe Son viII lo reveaI
HimseIf" (Lk. 10:22). The seIf-reveIalion of God in lhe Messianic Son
musl aIvays be underslood in lheir essenliaI oneness of divine eing,
as veII as lhe inlegraI unily of lheir eing and aclion. God reveaIs
HimseIf in lhe Son. He gives HimseIf lo man. }esus Chrisl reveaIs lhe
goseI in HimseIf. He gives HimseIf lo man as God.

s
Dua!istic Dctachmcnt
The faiIure lo mainlain lhe unily of lhe Ialher, Son and HoIy Siril in
lhe unily of lheir eing and aclion aIvays Ieads lo aberralionaI under-
slandings and exressions of Chrislianily. The hislory of Chrislian re-
Iigion (as dislincl from Chrislianily) is reIele vilh man's allemls lo
divide lhe ersons of lhe Godhead inlo dislincl funclions, and lo sever
Chrisl's vork from His erson. This Ialler dis|unclive duaIism is lhe
more sublIe and lhe mosl revaIenl lhroughoul vhal is caIIed "Chris-
lian hislory." Chrislianily is conceived of as some "lhing" eslabIished
aarl from, and dislincl from, Chrisl HimseIf. The goseI, lhe Church,
lhe kingdom are regarded as searale enlilies offered, exlended, eslab-
Iished, effecled or disensed by }esus Chrisl, indeendenl of HimseIf.
T.I. Torrance correclIy idenlifies such "delachmenl of Chrislianily
from Chrisl"
3
as lhe resuIl of eislemoIogicaI duaIism, noling lhal
"fundamenlaIism is unviIIing lo acknovIedge lhe idenlily in being be-
lveen vhal God is lovard us in His reveIalion in }esus Chrisl and
vhal He is in His Iiving eing and ReaIily in HimseIf."
4

IxamIes of such "searaled concels" of fundamenlaIisl duaIism
shouId be inslruclive, if nol convicling:
The hisloricaI }esus is oflen remembered as lhe hisloricaI founder of a
reIigion, lhe hislory of vhich can be documenled and anaIyzed. The
Iife of }esus on earlh, and lhe secific evenls lhereof, are memoriaIized.
The slory is borne from generalion lo generalion in seciaI commemo-
ralions: "Hay irlhday }esus" (Chrislmas) and "Remember lhe Res-
urreclion" (Iasler). Hov does lhis differ from lhe ceIebralory remem-
brances of George Washinglon's irlhday and lhe caII lo "Remember
IearI Harbor!"` When Chrislianily is faIseIy conceived of as an hislori-
caI sociely for lhe memory of and/or vorshi of an hisloricaIIy de-
lached founder, lhere is a dis|unclive duaIism belveen }esus Chrisl
and vhal is caIIed "Chrislianily."
When }esus is orlrayed as mereIy a reIigious or lheoIogicaI leacher,
lhen lhe conlenl of His leaching becomes an ideoIogicaI beIief-syslem
s,
dislincl from His erson. Iven vhen }esus is correclIy idenlified as lhe
medialoriaI reresenlalive of God (I Tim. 2:5), lhe High Iriesl of God
(Heb. 3:1, 8:1), lhe Son of God (}n. 11:27), lhe ralionaI formuIalion of
doclrinaI and lheoIogicaI roosilions can be formed inlo syslemalized
conslrucls of inlerrelalion lhal sland aIone from lhe Iiving resence of
}esus Chrisl. Chrislianily lhen becomes a lheoIogicaI sociely for lhe ex-
Ianalion of and debale of lheoIogicaI lrulhs in roosilionaI and sen-
lenliaI recision, vilh no recelion and exerience of lhe erson of lhe
risen Lord }esus.
}esus can be rocIaimed as lhe Savior of mankind, as He is vilhin
evangeIicaI reaching, bul vhen lhe Savior is delached from lhe roc-
ess of saIvalion a lransaclionaI duaIism resuIls. If }esus is bul lhe bene-
faclor of lhe benefils of saIvalion, lhen He is bul lhe source of com-
modilies, "goods," services, roducls or ossessions lhal are disensed,
conferred or endoved by one vho is duaIislicaIIy dislincl from lhal
vhich is deIivered. The siriluaI DeIiverer becomes bul a reIigious
disenser.
Those lhal advocale a behaviorislic moraIily or "Chrislian elhic" lhal
divorces lhe doing of good from lhe dynamic of lhe God-man, }esus
Chrisl, creale a disconnecled duaIism lhal encourages and execls be-
havior lhal conforms lo lhe codified ruIes and reguIalions by means of
emIoying rocedures, lechniques and behavioraI formuIas, ralher
lhan deriving divine characler, lhe "fruil of lhe Siril" (GaI. 5:22,23),
from lhe Siril of Chrisl (Rom. 8:9). Such moraI "vorks" may be en-
acled for ersonaI siriluaIily or for lhe sociaI good and bellermenl of
mankind al Iarge, bul vhen engaged in aarl from lhe oulvorking of
Chrisl's Iife, lhey remain disengaged from lhe reaIily of Chrislianily.
A fragmenled duaIism aIso resuIls vhen }esus Chrisl is nol heId in
organic union vilh lhe Church, lhe ody of Chrisl. }esus is nol lhe
"Head of lhe Church" onIy in lerms of being an hierarchicaI head of an
organizalionaI inslilulion. Neilher is He lhe "head" in lhe sense of be-
ing lhe founlainhead and founder of a reIigion lhal bears His name.
His headshi is nol mereIy inslrumenlaI in lhe eslabIishmenl of a cor-
s
orale eccIesiaslicism lhal vouId serve as lhe deosilory, conservalory
and disensary of grace and lrulh, as if lhese couId be dissecled from
lhe divine aclion of God in Chrisl.
Iroleslanlism is arlicuIarIy guiIly of lhe dissassocialive duaIism
lhal lransfers lhe exressive agency of lhe Word of God from }esus
Chrisl (}ohn 1:1,14) lo lhe imersonaIized inslruclion of God in an in-
sired book. Ingaging in lhe bibIicism of devolion lo a canonicaI for-
muIalion, and emIoying various forms of inlerrelalion, Iroleslanl
fundamenlaIisls have deveIoed a book-reIigion lhal oflen deifies lhe
book in ibIioIalry. WiIIiam arcIay noles lhal,
"There vas one mislake inlo vhich lhe earIy Church vas never in any
danger of faIIing. In lhose earIy days men never lhoughl of }esus
Chrisl as a figure in a book. They never lhoughl of Him as someone
vho had Iived and died, and vhose slory vas loId and assed dovn
in hislory, as lhe slory of someone vho had Iived and vhose Iife had
ended. They did nol lhink of Him as someone vho had been bul as
someone vho is. They did nol lhink of }esus Chrisl as someone vhose
leaching musl be discussed and debaled and argued aboul, lhey
lhoughl of Him as someone vhose resence couId be en|oyed and
vhose conslanl feIIovshi couId be exerienced. Their failh vas nol
founded on a book, lheir failh vas founded on a erson."
5

In accord vilh lhal oinion, }uan CarIos Orliz vriles,
"We need a nev generalion of Chrislians vho knov lhal lhe church is
cenlered around a Ierson vho Iives vilhin lhem. }esus didn'l Ieave us
vilh |usl a book and leII us, 'I Ieave lhe ibIe. Try lo find oul aII you
can from il by making concordances and commenlaries.' No, He didn'l
say lhal. 'Lo, I am vilh you aIvays,' He romised. 'I'm nol Ieaving you
vilh a book aIone. I am lhere, in your hearls.' ...We |usl have lo knov
lhal ve have lhe Aulhor of lhe book vilhin us..."
6

In addilion lo lhe above duaIislic lendencies, ve mighl aIso cile lhe
lheoIogicaI duaIism lhal has been invasive lhroughoul lhe cenluries of
"Chrislian lheoIogy" in lhe roensily lo ob|eclify lhe vork of Chrisl
s;
inlo exlernaI calegories unallached lo lhe ersonaI resence of Chrisl
by His Siril in lhe Chrislian. When lhe vork of }esus is casl inlo IegaI,
forensic and |udiciaI calegories lhal osil lhe lransference of enaIly
lhal issues forlh in lhe decIaralion and imulalion of |uslificalion in
lhe heavenIy courlroom, aarl from lhe siriluaI and exerienliaI
resence of lhe Righleous One, }esus Chrisl (I }n. 2:1), making us righl-
eous (II Cor. 5:21) and manifesling lhe characler "fruil of righleous-
ness" (IhiI. 1:11) in our behavior, ve have once again divorced lheoI-
ogy from lhe dynamic divine eing of lhe God-man, making il Iess lhal
"Chrislian lheoIogy."
.I. Weslcoll advised over a cenlury ago:
"According lo some lhe essence of Chrislianily Iies in lhe facl lhal il is
lhe sureme moraI Iav. According lo olhers ils essence is lo be found
in lrue doclrine, or more seciaIIy in lhe scheme of redemlion, or in
lhe means of lhe union of man vilh God. Chrislianily does in facl in-
cIude Lav, and Doclrine, and Redemlion, and Union, bul il combines
lhem aII in a sliII vider idea. Il eslabIishes lhe rinciIe of a Lav,
vhich is inlernaI and nol exlernaI, vhich incIudes an adequale molive
for obedience and coincides vilh lhe reaIisalion of freedom (}ames
1:25). Il is lhe exression of lhe Trulh, bul lhis Trulh is nol finaIIy re-
senled in lhoughls bul in facl, nol in abslracl roosilions bul in a Iiv-
ing Ierson.
7

In lhis lhen Iies lhe main idea of Chrislianily, lhal il resenls lhe re-
demlion, lhe erfeclion, lhe consummalion of aII finile being in union
vilh God.
8

Chrislianily is hisloricaI nol simIy or characlerislicaIIy because
Chrisl slanding oul before lhe vorId al a definile lime and Iace ro-
cIaimed cerlain lrulhs and Iaid dovn cerlain ruIes for lhe conslilulion
and conducl of a sociely. Il is hisloricaI because He offered HimseIf in
His ovn Ierson, and He vas shevn lo be in lhe evenls of His Life, lhe
reveIalion vhich He came lo give.
9

s8
The divine reveIalion cannol be delached from lhe divine reaIily of
lhe Iiving Lord }esus. The reveIalion of lhe goseI is lhe reveIalion of
HimseIf. The "good nevs" is }esus! The goseI reveIalion of God in
Chrisl is nol a differenlialed hiIosohy vilh fragmenled rinciIes of
beIief and behavior. German marlyr, Dielrich onhoeffer, vrole,
"Chrisl is nol a rinciIe in accordance vilh vhich lhe vhoIe vorId
musl be shaed. Chrisl is nol lhe rocIaimer of a syslem of vhal
vouId be good loday, here and al aII limes. Chrisl leaches no abslracl
elhics such as musl al aII cosls be ul inlo raclice. Chrisl vas nol es-
senliaIIy a leacher and IegisIalor, bul a man, a reaI man Iike ourseIves.
Il is nol lherefore His viII lhal ve shouId in our lime be lhe adherenls,
exonenls and advocales of a definile doclrine, bul lhal ve shouId be
reaI men before God. ...Whal Chrisl does is reciseIy lo give effecl lo
reaIily. He is HimseIf lhe reaI man and consequenlIy lhe foundalion of
aII human reaIily."
10

Irench aulhor, }acques IIIuI, concurs,
"There are no such lhings as 'Chrislian rinciIes.' There is lhe Ierson
of Chrisl, vho is lhe rinciIe of everylhing. If ve vish lo be failhfuI
lo Him, ve cannol dream of reducing Chrislianily lo a cerlain number
of rinciIes, lhe consequences of vhich can be IogicaIIy deduced. This
lendency lo lransform lhe vork of lhe Living God inlo a hiIosohicaI
doclrine is lhe conslanl lemlalion of lheoIogy, and lheir grealesl dis-
IoyaIly vhen lhey lransform lhe aclion of lhe Siril vhich brings forlh
fruil in lhemseIves inlo an elhic, a nev Iav, inlo 'rinciIes' vhich
onIy have lo be 'aIied.'"
11

The divine vork of God in Chrisl has been duaIislicaIIy ob|eclified
and hisloricaIIy delached from lhe Iiving erson of lhe resurrecled
Lord. ased uon lhose hisloricaI and lheoIogicaI ob|eclivilies of lhe
resloralive aclion of God in Chrisl, lhe siriluaI vork of God in Chrisl
by lhe Siril musl be sub|ecliveIy unified in lhe exerience of men vho
are recelive lo such in failh. Desile lhe lendency lo shy avay from
such, due lo myslic excesses and such eccIesiaslicaI abuses as inlernaI
infusion and divinizalion lhal have arisen lhroughoul lhe hislory of
s
"Chrislian lheoIogy," lhere musl be a baIanced exIanalion and resen-
lalion of lhe ob|eclive and sub|eclive, eislemoIogicaI and exerienliaI,
hisloricaI and ersonaI vork of God in Chrisl. Aarl from lhe exeri-
enliaI vork of God in man, Chrislianily soon degenerales inlo mereIy
slalic hisloricaI remembrances, lheoIogicaI calegorizalions, bibIicisl in-
lerrelalions, moraI conformalions, IilurgicaI reelilions, elc., as noled
above. On lhe olher hand, aarl from lhe hisloricaI and lheoIogicaI
foundalions, Chrislianily easiIy degenerales inlo sensale sub|eclivism,
emolive ecslalism, elhereaI myslicism, lemoraI exislenliaIism, char-
ismalic enlhusiasm, elc. Thus lhe imorlance of our quesl for a baI-
anced ibIicaI underslanding lhal inlegrales lhe exlernaI and inlernaI
by mainlaining an inlegraI unily of lhe elernaI erson and vork of }e-
sus Chrisl.
In his book enlilIed Cnrisiianiiq is Cnrisi, W.H. Griffilh Thomas con-
cIuded lhal,
"The Chrisl of Ixerience cannol be sundered from lhe Chrisl of His-
lory, and lhe aeaI lo exerience is imossibIe unIess exerience is
based on hisloric facl. The hislory musl guaranlee lhe exerience in lhe
individuaI. ...If ve Iose our failh in lhe hisloric facl of lhe Chrisl of lhe
GoseIs il viII nol be Iong before ve Iose our failh in lhe exerience of
lhe Chrisl of loday.
12

"...lhe cenlraI lrulh of Chrislianily (is) lhal lhe HoIy Siril brings lo
bear on our hearls and Iives lhe resence and over of lhe Iiving
Chrisl, and lhereby Iinks logelher lhe Chrisl of Hislory and lhe Chrisl
of Iailh. ...lhus lhe vork of lhe HoIy Siril in reIalion lo Chrisl is lhe
very hearl of Chrislianily.
13

"Chrisl is essenliaI, Chrisl is fundamenlaI, Chrisl is aII.
14

Indeed, lhe inlrinsic unily of lhe hysicaIIy incarnaled }esus and lhe
resurrecled, ascended }esus oured oul in lhe form of lhe Siril of
Chrisl on Ienlecosl, conlinuing lo funclion in every age and unlo eler-
nily in lhe exression of His ovn eing, musl be mainlained un-
equivocaIIy as lhe essence of Chrislianily.
s,o
As lhe arlicuIar urose of lhis sludy is lo caII Chrislian lheoIogy
back lo a ersonaIized underslanding of lhe unified vork of Chrisl in
His ever-resenl siriluaI eing, ve shaII roceed lo consider lhe di-
vine reaIily of lhe inlernaIized resence and aclivily of lhe risen Lord
}esus by His Siril. In considering lhe sub|eclive and exerienliaI im-
Iicalions of lhe Iife of }esus Chrisl in Chrislians, ve musl mainlain lhe
inlegraI oneness of His eing and aclion by noling bolh lhe onloIogicaI
essence of lhe indveIIing eing of }esus Chrisl in lhe Chrislian, as veII
as lhe dynamic exression of lhe funclionaI aclivily of }esus Chrisl in
and lhrough lhe Chrislian.
Ontn!ngica! Esscncc nI Jcsus Christ in thc Christian
The "bollom-Iine" reaIily of vhal il means lo be a Chrislian is ex-
ressed by lhe aoslIe IauI in his eislIe lo lhe Romans. "If anyone
does nol have lhe Siril of Chrisl, he is none of His" (Rom. 8:9), for "lhe
Siril HimseIf bears vilness vilh our siril lhal ve are chiIdren of
God" (Rom. 8:16). Aarl from lhe indveIIing resence and vilness of
lhe onloIogicaI essence of Chrisl by His Siril, one is nol a Chrislian
and nol arlicialing in Chrislianily. "Chrisl in one" conslilules a
"Chrisl-one," i.e. a Chrislian. This is lhe radicaI nev reaIily lhal God
made avaiIabIe in lhe nev covenanl, lhe essenliaI resence of lhe very
erson, Iife and eing of lhe Siril of Chrisl, lhe seIf-conveyance of
HimseIf lo lhe sirils of recelive humanily.
In lhis resloralion of lhe Siril of God lo lhe sirils of men (cf. Gen.
2:7), so lhal men mighl funclion as God inlended in His crealive de-
sign, lhere is effecled a siriluaI union vhereby ve become "one siril"
vilh Chrisl (I Cor. 6:17). This is nol a sychoIogicaI union vhereby ve
kee }esus in our lhoughls and consciousness, nor is il a moraI union
vhereby ve are obIiged lo seek lo conform lo }esus' examIe. Ralher, il
is a siriluaI union vhereby deily dveIIs and funclions in man, Chrisl
in lhe Chrislian. }esus iIIuslraled lhis siriluaI condilion lo Nicodemus
in lhe anaIogy of a "nev birlh," a siriluaI regeneralion vhereby one is
"born of lhe Siril" (}ohn 3:1-6).
s,s
Il is exlremeIy imorlanl lo kee in mind lhal lhe resence of lhe
risen Lord }esus in lhe Chrislian is nol lo be divided from lhe erson
and resence of lhe HoIy Siril. The dissoIulion of lhe onloIogicaI es-
sence of }esus Chrisl from lhe HoIy Siril creales a defeclive lrinilarian
erseclive of God lhal has Iagued "Chrislian lheoIogy" for cenluries
and remains a serious misreresenlalion even in evangeIicaI exIana-
lions. The HoIy Siril is nol a subslilule for Chrisl, nor is He a surro-
gale of Chrisl, bul musl be underslood lo be indissoIubIy one vilh
Chrisl. IauI adequaleIy reveaIs lhal lhe Siril of God, lhe Siril of
Chrisl, and lhe HoIy Siril can be referred lo inlerchangabIy (Rom. 8:4-
11) as lhe lriune God, vho is Siril (}n. 4:24), funclions vilhin lhe
Chrislian. Sviss lheoIogian, KarI arlh, noled lhal
"lhe being and vork of }esus Chrisl in lhe form of lhe being and vork
of His HoIy Siril is lhe originaI and refiguralive exislence of Chrisli-
anily and Chrislians."
15

The indveIIing resence of lhe onloIogicaI essence of God lhe Ialher,
Son and HoIy Siril in lhe siril of a Chrislian conslilules lhe divine
reaIily of a "nev crealure" in Chrisl. "If any man is in Chrisl, he is a
nev crealure" (II Cor. 5:17). This is nol an assumed idenlily vherevilh
lo engage in roIe-Iaying of Chrislian Iiving, bul a nev siriluaI iden-
lily as a "nev man" (Ih. 4:24, CoI. 3:10) in Chrisl. The deeesl sense of
one's idenlily is in idenlificalion vilh lhe siriluaI being lhal consli-
lules one's siriluaI condilion.
Here, again, ve confronl lhe duaIislic delachmenl evidenl in Chris-
lian reIigion, lhal osils a searale and innale essence of human being
vilh a seIf-generaled caabiIily lo creale or assume ersonaI idenlily,
nalure, siriluaIily, characler, image, Iife or immorlaIily, indeendenl
of God. OnIy in siriluaI union vilh lhe onloIogicaI essence of }esus
Chrisl can lhe Chrislian derive lhese siriluaI reaIilies, conlingenl
uon and indivisibIe from }esus Chrisl. Our siriluaI nalure as Chris-
lians is nol an inherenl human nalure, bul has been converled from a
nalure idenlified vilh vralh (Ih. 2:2) lo "arlaking of lhe divine na-
lure" (II Ieler 1:4) in unified coaIilion vilh lhe siriluaI nalure of God
s,z
in Chrisl. We are nol essenliaIIy siriluaI, for lhal vouId be lo deify
man since onIy "God is Siril" (}n. 4:24), bul ve derive our siriluaIily
from siriluaI conneclivily eilher vilh lhe siril of error or lhe siril of
lrulh (I }n. 4:6), lhe siril of lhe vorId or lhe Siril of God (I Cor. 2:12).
Our characler is nol a consicuous fealure of ersonaIily in accord
vilh sociaI mores and vaIues, bul is delermined by lhe essenliaI im-
ress of lhe characler of lhe siril lhal indveIIs us. The image of God
in man is nol comrised of innale fealures of human crealureIiness,
nor of dis|oined refIeclions or reresenlalions of God in man, bul lhe
reaIily of lhe siriluaI resence of God vhich aIIovs for lhe visibIe ex-
ression of lhe characler of God in our behavior vhen ve have been
siriluaIIy reneved lo such image in }esus Chrisl (CoI. 3:10). Iven lhe
essence of our ersonhood is nol evaIualed by lhe ersonaIily charac-
lerislics of menlaI, emolionaI and voIilionaI funclion, bul by our one-
ness vilh lhe Ierson of God in Chrisl vho by His lrinilarian homo-
ousion is lhe erfeclion of reIalionaI inleraclion in Ioving inlerersonaI
reIalionshis.
The enlirely of vho ve are and vhal ve do as Chrislians is derived
from and conlingenl uon our siriluaI union vilh lhe Siril of Chrisl.
This is nol based uon an inslrumenlaI or causaI conneclion vilh
Chrisl vhereby some "lhing" olher lhan Chrisl is exlended lo us, bul is
a ersonaI and reIalionaI union vhereby Chrisl HimseIf becomes lhe
essence of aII divine and siriluaI reaIilies in us.
"Chrisl is our Iife," exIains lhe aoslIe IauI, for "our Iife is hidden
vilh Chrisl in God" (CoI. 3:3,4). SiriluaI Iife is conveyed nol by heri-
lage or erformance (}n. 1:13) or urchase, bul lhrough lhe figuralive
anaIogy of "nev birlh," being "born from above" (}n. 3:1-6) or "born of
God" (}n. 1:13). The Iife lhal ve receive in Chrisl is nol searaled aarl
from }esus, nor is il a arl of }esus lhal can be arliliveIy arorialed.
}esus is lhe siriluaI Iife lhal ve receive and arliciale in. "God has
given us elernaI Iife, and lhis Iife is in His Son" (I }n. 5:11). "I am...lhe
Iife" (}n. 14:6), }esus said, and "I came lhal you mighl have Iife" (}n.
10:10). Concerning lhis elernaI siriluaI Iife, W. Ian Thomas exIains,
s,;
"}esus Chrisl and elernaI Iife are synonymous lerms, and elernaI Iife is
none olher lhan }esus Chrisl HimseIf. ...If you have elernaI Iife al aII, il
simIy means lhal you have lhe Son, }esus Chrisl..."
"IlernaI Iife is nol a ecuIiar feeIing inside! Il is nol your uIlimale des-
linalion, lo vhich you viII go vhen you are dead. If you are born
again, elernaI Iife is lhal quaIily of Iife lhal you ossess righl nov... He
is lhal Life!"
16

The siriluaI Iife lhal ve exerience in Chrisl is lhe very resurreclion-
Iife of }esus Chrisl. The hisloricaI evenl of }esus' hysicaI resurreclion
from lhe dead, aIIoved lhe risen and Iiving Lord }esus lo invesl His
resurreclion-Iife in aII Chrislians by lhe Siril. "I am lhe resurreclion
and lhe Iife" (}n. 11:25), }esus exIained. In exIaining The Mind of
Sl.IauI, WiIIiam arcIay vrole,
"To IauI lhe Resurreclion vas nol a asl facl, bul a resenl over.
"If Chrisl is risen from lhe dead, il means lhal il is ossibIe for lhe
Chrislian lo Iive every momenl of every day in lhe resence and lhe
feIIovshi of lhe Iiving Chrisl. Il means lhal lhe Chrislian aroaches
no lasks aIone, bears no sorrov aIone, allacks no robIem aIone, faces
no demand aIone, endures no lemlalion aIone. Il means lhal }esus
Chrisl does nol issue his commands, and lhen Ieave us lo do our besl
lo obey lhem aIone, bul lhal he is conslanlIy vilh us lo enabIe us lo
erform lhal vhich he commands.
"To IauI lhe Resurreclion of }esus Chrisl vas neilher simIy a facl in
hislory nor a lheoIogicaI dogma. Il vas lhe sureme facl of exerience.
Il meanl lhal aII Iife is Iived in lhe resence of lhe Iove and of lhe
over of }esus Chrisl."
17

Lulheran rofessor, KarI IauI Donfried, commenls simiIarIy,
"The earIy church did nol ask ils foIIovers lo simIy imilale or observe
some slalic rinciIes of Chrislianily, bul ralher lo so comrehend lhe
significance of lhe Chrisl evenl lhal lhey couId dynamicaIIy acluaIize
s,
ils imIicalions in lhe silualion in vhich lhey Iived. The freedom for
lhis acluaIizalion and aIicalion lo lhe concrele, exislenliaI silualion
can onIy be comrehended vhen one recognizes lhal lhese earIy
Chrislians vere nol vorshiing some dead rohel of Nazarelh,
ralher, essenliaI lo lheir very exislence vas lhe conviclion lhal lhis }e-
sus vas raised from lhe dead by God, vas nov lhe Lord of lhe church,
and resenl in ils very Iife. Il is lhis resence of lhe Risen One lhal bolh
comeIIed and aIIoved lhe earIy church lo engage in such vigorous
and dynamic leaching and rocIamalion."
18

The resurreclion-Iife of lhe risen and Iiving Lord }esus is lhe onlo-
IogicaI essence of Chrislianily. The conlinuum of His Life in a erelu-
ily lhal "cannol die" (}n. 11:26), aIIovs His elernaIily lo be exressed in
immorlaIily. }esus "broughl Iife and immorlaIily lo Iighl lhrough lhe
goseI" (II Tim. 1:10). Such immorlaIily of Iife is nol inherenl lo man's
humanily for "God aIone ossesses immorlaIily" (I Tim. 6:16), nor is il
a fulurislic revard lo be resenled, bul is inherenl in lhe elernaI resur-
reclion-Iife of }esus Chrisl. The Chrislian arliciales in and en|oys lhe
ereluily of elernaI immorlaIily onIy in siriluaI union vilh lhe Iiv-
ing Lord }esus.
y lhese siriluaI reaIilies of lhe Chrislian's siriluaI condilion in re-
generalion ve have soughl lo documenl lhe onloIogicaI essence of lhe
indveIIing eing of }esus Chrisl in lhe Chrislian. "Do you nol recog-
nize lhis aboul yourseIves, lhal }esus Chrisl is in you`", IauI queried
lhe Corinlhians. To lhe CoIossians, he exIained lhal lhe siriluaI mys-
lery of lhe goseI is "Chrisl in you, lhe hoe of gIory" (CoI. 1:27).
Dynamic Exprcssinn nI Jcsus Christ thrnugh thc Christian
To kee lhe divine eing and aclivily inlegraled and unified, ve ro-
ceed lo consider lhe dynamic exression of lhe funclionaI aclivily of
}esus Chrisl in and lhrough Chrislian behavior. The siriluaI condilion
of lhe Chrislian, consliluled by lhe indveIIing resence of His Iife, aI-
Iovs for lhe seIf-exression of His eing in Chrislian behavior. The es-
sence and exression of Chrisl's Iife vere con|oined by IauI vhen he
vrole lo lhe GaIalians, "il is no Ionger I vho Iive, bul Chrisl Iives in
s,,
me, and lhe Iife lhal I nov Iive in lhe fIesh I Iive by failh in lhe Son of
God vho Ioved me and gave HimseIf for me" (GaI. 2:20).
The Iife of }esus Chrisl vilhin lhe siril of lhe Chrislian is nol |usl a
deosil lo guaranlee fulure heavenIy benefils. Such a slalic and de-
lached underslanding of lhe Chrislian Iife encourages Chrislians lo
"hoId on," vail, and endure lhe alhos of lhe resenl, because lhe asl
is forgiven and lhe fulure is assured. Il misreads lhe goseI as a heav-
enIy fire-insurance oIicy for lhe avoidance of heII. The ob|eclive of
arlicialing in Chrislianily and lhe Chrislian Iife is nol |usl lo avoid
heII and gel assage lo heaven, bul lo aIIov lhe dynamic exression of
lhe Iife of }esus Chrisl by His Siril lo funclion in human behavior lo
lhe gIory of God on lhe vay lo heaven (if such is lo be erceived
mereIy as Iocalive and fulure). Regeneralion of siriluaI condilion is
bul a crisis vilh a viev lo a Iiving rocess!
Chrislian Iiving is nol generaled, roduced or manufaclured by lhe
Chrislian in resonse lo, or arecialion of, Chrisl's redemlive vork
or siriluaI resence. }esus' hysicaI behavior and minislry on earlh
vas nol generaled by His ovn inilialive (}n. 8:28, 12:49), bul by lhe di-
vine resence of lhe Ialher abiding in Him and doing His vorks (}n.
14:10), and Iikevise lhe Chrislian Iife is nol seIf-generaled by lhe inilia-
live of lhe Chrislian, bul is enacled by lhe dynamic exression of lhe
Iife of }esus Chrisl lhrough lhe Chrislian. Thomas Merlon exIained
lhal "}esus creales il (lhe Chrislian Iife) in our souIs by lhe aclion of His
Siril."
19
The dynamic of God's grace in }esus Chrisl is lhe imelus of
lhe Chrislian Iife.
As reviousIy noled, Chrislianily is nol moraIily. The Chrislian Iife is
nol human and reIigious allemls lo imIemenl a lheory for Iiving a
good and moraI Iife by conformily lo behavioraI ruIes and reguIalions.
Il is nol even lhe alleml lo ul inlo raclice lhe moraI leachings of }e-
sus. Ralher, lhe indveIIing Chrisl-Iife is lo be dynamicaIIy exressed in
lhe behavior of a Chrislian. C.S. Levis exIains,
s,
"lhe Chrislian lhinks any good he does comes from lhe Chrisl-Iife in-
side him. He does nol lhink God viII Iove us because ve are good, bul
lhal God viII make us good because He Ioves us."
"...vhen Chrislians say lhe Chrisl-Iife is in lhem, lhey do nol mean
simIy somelhing menlaI or moraI. When lhey seak of being 'in
Chrisl' or of Chrisl being 'in lhem,' lhis is nol simIy a vay of saying
lhal lhey are lhinking aboul Chrisl or coying Him. They mean lhal
Chrisl is acluaIIy oeraling lhrough lhem..."
20
"(lhe) Chrislian idea of 'ulling on Chrisl'... Il is lhe vhoIe of Chrislian-
ily. Chrislianily offers nolhing eIse al aII. Il differs from ordinary ideas
of 'moraIily' and 'being good.'"
21

Neilher is lhe Chrislian Iife an alleml lo foIIov }esus' examIe and
"imilale His virlues."
22
Conlrary lo lhe cIassic incuIcalions lo lhe |niia-
iicn cj Cnrisi (Thomas a Kemis) by vaIking |n His Sicps (CharIes SheI-
don) in order lo be Iikc Cnrisi (Andrev Murray), lhe Chrislian Iife is
nol an alleml al duIicalion. Melhodisl aslor, Maxie Dunnam, ex-
Iained lhal,
"...lo see lhe allerning of Iives afler }esus as lhe essence of Chrislianily
misses lhe oinl. This has been lhe ma|or faiIure of lhe Chrislian
Church since lhe second cenlury on. To emhasize foIIoving }esus as
lhe hearl of Chrislianily is lo reduce il lo a reIigion of moraIs and elh-
ics and denude il of over. This has haened over and over again in
Chrislian hislory-lhe diminishing of lhe roIe of }esus lo mereIy an ex-
amIe for us lo foIIov."
23

Orliz admonishes Chrislians lo,
"Slo lrying lo coy lhe }esus of nearIy 2000 years ago, and Iel lhe Iiv-
ing Chrisl fIov lhrough your characler. You are an exression of lhe
gIorified, elernaI Chrisl vho Iives vilhin you."
24

The Chrislian Iife is nol an imilalion of }esus' Iife, bul lhe manifesla-
lion of His Iife and eing in our behavior. The AoslIe IauI vas desir-
s,;
ous lhal "lhe Iife of }esus shouId be manifesled in our morlaI bodies"
(II Cor. 4:10,11).
IxIaining lo His disciIes lheir inabiIily lo reroduce lhe Chrislian
Iife, }esus indicaled, "Aarl from Me, you can do nolhing" (}ohn 15:5).
There is nolhing lhal a Chrislian can originale or aclivale lhal consli-
lules or demonslrales Chrislianily, lhal quaIifies as Chrislian behavior,
or lhal gIorifies God. "I am lhe vine, you are lhe branches" (}n. 15:5)
vas lhe anaIogy lhal }esus uliIized lo iIIuslrale lhe necessily of aIIov-
ing His Iife suslenance lo fIov lhrough lhe Chrislian's bodiIy behavior,
vhereby lhe Chrislian mighl bear (nol roduce) lhe fruil of His charac-
ler. The characler of Chrisl Iived oul in Chrislians is lhe "fruil of lhe
Siril, vhich is Iove, |oy, eace, alience, kindness, goodness, failhfuI-
ness, genlIeness, and seIf-conlroI" (GaI. 5:22,23).
The fruil of Chrisl's characler is aIso lhe "fruil of righleousness" (IhiI.
1:11, }ames 3:18). The divine characler of righleousness (I }n. 2:29, 3:7)
ersonified in "lhe Righleous One" (Acls 3:13, 7:52, 22:14,I }n. 2:1), }e-
sus Chrisl, aIIovs lhe Chrislian lo "become righleous" (II Cor. 5:21) and
"be made righleous" (Rom. 5:19), as "Chrisl becomes lo
us...righleousness" (I Cor. 1:30). The underslanding of righleousness
musl nol be ob|eclified onIy in "osilionaI lrulhs" of decIaralion, imu-
lalion, reckoning and reconciIialion, vilh no raclicaI imIicalion of
our bodiIy members being "inslrumenls of righleousness" (Rom. 6:13)
in lhe conveyance of Chrisl's characler.
"Having been reconciIed, ve shaII be saved by His Iife" (Rom. 5:10),
IauI exIains. Chrislians Iive by "lhe saving Iife of Chrisl."
25
Thal is
vhy IauI couId aIso say, "for me lo Iive is Chrisl" (IhiI. 1:21). SaIvalion
is nol simIy a slalic evenl of regeneralive conversion, bul is lhe dy-
namic exression of Chrisl's Iife lhal causes us lo be "made safe" from
misuse and dysfunclion, in order lo funclion as God inlended by His
resence and aclivily in us.
AII of lhe deeds or vorks of Chrislian Iiving are bul lhe oulvorking
of Chrisl's aclivily. "We are His vorkmanshi, crealed in Chrisl }esus
for good vorks, vhich He has reared beforehand lhal ve shouId
s,8
vaIk in lhem" (Ih. 2:10). We aIIov for lhe oulvorking of Chrisl's
vork by recognizing lhal "God is al vork in us, bolh lo viII and lo
vork for His good Ieasure" (IhiI. 2:12,13). To cIaim Chrislian failh
vilhoul any of lhe consequenl oulvorking of Chrisl's characler and
aclivily, is lo evidence lhe invaIidily of such failh (cf. }ames 2:14,17,26).
Chrislian minislry is Iikevise, nol somelhing lhal lhe Chrislian does
lo serve }esus. "God is nol served vilh human hands, as lhough He
needed anylhing" (Acls 17:25). Ralher, ve recognize lhal lhe "same
God vorks aII lhings in aII Chrislians" (I Cor. 12:6). Togelher vilh IauI
ve affirm lhal "ve are nol adequale lo consider anylhing as coming
from ourseIves, bul our adequacy is of God" (II Cor. 3:5). This is vhy
IauI decIared, "I viII nol resume lo seak of anylhing excel vhal
Chrisl has accomIished lhrough me" (Rom. 15:18).
God in Chrisl by His Siril emovers, enabIes, energizes and enacls
aII Chrislian behavior and minislry as lhe dynamic exression of lhe
Iife of }esus Chrisl. Chrislianily is Chrisl. Chrislian Iiving is lhe Iife and
characler of }esus Chrisl Iived oul lhrough lhe Chrislian.
Some vouId ob|ecl lhal lhis lhesis is a form of divine delerminism
lhal iminges uon man's freedom of choice, bul such is nol vaIid for
man is definileIy resonsibIe lo exercise lhe choice of failh lhal aIIovs
for lhe recelivily of God's aclivily in him, bolh iniliaIIy and conlinu-
aIIy. Olhers vouId ob|ecl lhal allribuling aII Chrislian aclivily lo Chrisl
encourages assivism and acquiesence, bul nolice lhe vords of IauI, "I
Iabor, slriving according lo His over, vhich mighliIy vorks vilhin
me" (CoI. 1:29). God is an aclive God, aIvays acling oul of His eing
and characler, and lhose avaiIabIe lo Him viII inevilabIy be invoIved
in aclive exressions of lhe Chrisl-Iife.
Conlinuing lhen, lhe enlirely of lhis divine, siriluaI reaIily of
Chrisl's resence and funclion as Chrislianily, musl be underslood nol
onIy individuaIIy in lhe Iife of each Chrislian (as ve have been doing),
bul aIso coIIecliveIy or cororaleIy in lhe vhoIe of lhe Church of }esus
Chrisl.

s,
The onloIogicaI essence of }esus Chrisl coIIecliveIy embodied in aII
Chrislians comrises lhe ody of Chrisl, lhe Church (Ih. 1:22,23, CoI.
1:18,24). Nol onIy is Chrisl in us individuaIIy, bul He is "in us" coIIec-
liveIy (cf. I Cor. 3:16), and ve are "in Him" logelher (cf. Ih. 1:13). "We
are aII one in Chrisl }esus" (GaI. 3:28), irreseclive of race, gender, age,
nalionaIily, educalion, inleIIigence, ersonaIily allerns, doclrinaI
oinions, or denominalionaI references. Dielrich onhoeffer ex-
ressed lhe singuIar essence of lhe ody "in Chrisl" in lhese vords:
"The Church is lhe reaI resence of Chrisl. Once ve have reaIized lhis
lrulh ve are veII on lhe vay lo recovering an asecl of lhe Church's
being vhich has been sadIy negIecled in lhe asl. We shouId lhink of
lhe Church nol as an inslilulion, bul as a erson, lhough of course a
erson in a unique sense.
26
"Through his Siril, lhe crucified and risen Lord exisls as lhe Church,
as lhe nev man. Il is |usl as lrue lo say lhal lhis ody is lhe nev hu-
manily as lo say lhal he is God incarnale dveIIing in elernily.
27

"The Church of Chrisl is lhe resence of Chrisl lhrough lhe HoIy Siril.
In lhis vay lhe Iife of lhe ody of Chrisl becomes our ovn Iife. In
Chrisl ve no Ionger Iive our ovn Iives, bul he Iives His Iife in us. The
Iife of lhe failhfuI in lhe Church is indeed lhe Iife of Chrisl in lhem."
28

Sviss aulhor, Manfred HaIIer, aIso sees lhe singuIar unily of Chrisl
and lhe Church.
"Chrisl is lhe essence and nalure of lhe church by lhe HoIy Siril. He is
her conlenl, her slruclure, her fuIIness, and she is for her arl Chrisl's
fuIIness."
29

"In modern arIance, church is an inslilulion, a form of Chrislian
communily, a sel of eoIe beIieving in Chrisl (or al Ieasl having some
concel of God) vhich convenes reguIarIy. When ve laIk aboul
church, ve immedialeIy iclure a number of eoIe vho, on lhe basis
of some common underslanding or arrangemenl, have formed a Chris-
lian associalion. ...When IauI lhoughl of lhe church, hovever, he
so
lhoughl of Chrisl. The idea lhal lhe church couId be anylhing beyond
lhe embodimenl of Chrisl never crossed his mind."
30
"Chrisl and lhe church are one singIe reaIily! The body is nol an al-
lachmenl lo Chrisl, il embodies Him. Il gives exression lo Chrisl lhe
vhoIe Chrisl and il carries Him vilhin il. In lhe church, in lhe body,
Chrisl HimseIf Iives and acls and seaks. The church is lhe cororale
Chrisl Chrisl in lhe sainls lhrough lhe HoIy Siril. This indveIIing
Chrisl is her nalure and slruclure, her unily, lrulh and cerlainly, He is
everylhing lo her. And Chrisl is in every member!"
31
"Chrisl and lhe church are absoIuleIy and indivisibIy one. The church
is ullerIy absorbed in lhe exerience of lhe risen and resenl Lord. The
inner reaIily and resence of Chrisl slams her indeIibIy. She is di-
recled by Him and heId logelher by Him, and lhe very Ienglh and
breadlh of her is lhe erson of Chrisl }esus. Her aulhorily is His, her
mind is His mind, and her hoIiness His hoIiness. She has nolhing of
her ovn."
32
"The church has onIy lhis lask: lo embody Chrisl, manifesl His nalure,
demonslrale God's Iove lo lhe vorId and rocIaim His Lordshi over
aII lhings."
33

As lhe onloIogicaI essence of lhe Church, lhe Iiving Lord }esus is aIso
lhe dynamic exression of aII lhal lransires in lhe Church His ody.
}esus Chrisl in each individuaI Chrislian reIales lo HimseIf in anolher
Chrislian, aIIoving for inleraclive inlerersonaI reIalionshis lhal
comrise a Ioving sociaI communily. IarIy observers of lhe Church, of
Chrislianily, marveIed al hov lhe Chrislians "Ioved one anolher." In
lhe exression of Chrisl's characler of Iove, lhey minislered logelher in
lhe siriluaI gifledness of Chrisl's funclionaI service lo one anolher, as
vas lhe inlenl of lhe Church's funclionaIily.
}esus romised lhal lhe Church, lhus funclioning by lhe resence
and aclivily of His Iife, vouId overcome aII odds. "Uon lhis rock I
viII buiId My church, and lhe gales of Hades shaII nol overover il"
(Mall. 16:18). .I. Weslcoll observed lhal "lhe hislory of lhe Chrislian
ss
Church is lhe hislory of lhe viclories of lhe Risen Chrisl gained
lhrough lhe Siril senl in His name."
34
"We see a Divine Life mani-
fesled...from age lo age lhrough a Divine sociely."
35
The concIusion of
}ames Denny vas lhal, "vilhoul Chrisl lhere vouId be no Church and
no minislry al aII, everylhing ve caII Chrislian is absoIuleIy deendenl
on Him."
36
Have ve nol sufficienlIy documenled lhal }esus Chrisl is lhe singuIar
essence and exression of lhe goseI, of lhe reveIalion of God, of
Chrislianily, of lhe Church` Iverylhing "Chrislian" is derived from lhe
eing and aclivily of }esus. AII of Chrislianily is conlingenl and de-
endenl on Him, and exressive of Him. Chrislianily is Chrisl!
When }esus announced lo His disciIes, "I am lhe vay, lhe lrulh, and
lhe Iife" (}n. 14:6), He vas decIaring lhal aII vas inherenl in Him. He is
lhe modaIily, reaIily and vilaIily of God, and lhus of Chrislianily and
lhe Church. He does nol |usl leach us lhe vay of God or guide us lo
lhe divine vay, bul His very eing is lhe vay of God's seIf-reveIalion
lo man, lhe modaIily of siriluaI union vilh God and roer human
funclion. He does nol simIy leach lrulh roosilions aboul God aarl
from HimseIf, bul His very eing is lhe seIf-aulhenlicaling Trulh of
God, lhe reaIily of Chrislianily. He does nol offer us an hisloricaI ex-
amIe of Iife or a commodily of "elernaI Iife," bul His very eing is lhe
seIf-exression of lhe Iiving God, lhe dynamic vilaIily of Chrislian Iife.
He couId |usl as veII have said, "I am Chrislianily!"
Disintcgratinn nI thc Gnspc!
Hov imorlanl is lhis inlegralion of Chrisl's erson and vork, lhe
inlegraI oneness of His being and aclion` Is il reaIIy of serious imorl
lo insisl lhal lhe unily of His essence and exression be mainlained`
ShouId ve endeavor lo chaIIenge lhe lradilionaI duaIislic delachmenls
of "Chrislian reIigion," and usel lhe reIigious slalus-quo lhal sea-
rales Chrisl from lhal aclivily lhal goes by His name`
This aulhor beIieves lhal il is imeralive lhal ve address lhe issue of
lhe delachmenl and dis|unclure of Chrislianily from Chrisl, for such a
sz
erversion conslilules a disinlegralion of lhe goseI, lhe reveIalion of
God in Chrisl. The issue al hand is bul anolher form of lhal iniliaIIy
addressed by IauI in his eislIe lo lhe GaIalians, vhen he confronled
lhe GaIalian beIievers vho vere being dued inlo denying lhal Chris-
lianily vas consliluled in lhe Iife of Chrisl aIone vilhoul any encum-
brances of addilionaI beIief or aclion. IauI accused lhose vho suc-
cumbed lo such disconnecled accrelions of a circumscribed riluaI, of
"deserling Chrisl, vho caIIed lhem by His grace, for anolher goseI
vhich is nol good nevs al aII, bul a dislorlion vorlhy onIy of damna-
lion" (GaI. 1:6-9).
If lhe ncnccusicn issue of lhe inlegraI oneness of lhe Trinily vas im-
orlanl enough lo address al lhe CounciI of Nicea in lhe fourlh cen-
lury. If lhe sc|a graiia, sc|a ji!c, sc|a scripiura, sc|a Cnrisius issue of lhe
singuIarily of lhe redemlive efficacy of Chrisl's |uslifying and sancli-
fying vork received by failh vas imorlanl enough lo address in lhe
Reformalion of lhe sixleenlh cenlury. Then, lhe issue of lhe inlegraI
oneness of lhe onloIogicaI essence and dynamic exression of }esus
Chrisl in Chrislianily and lhe Church is cerlainIy limeIy and imorlanl
enough lo address in lhe lvenly-firsl cenlury.
The disinlegralion of Chrisl and Chrislianily in conlemorary "Chris-
lian reIigion" aIIovs lhe onloIogicaI essence of }esus Chrisl in lhe
Chrislian individuaI lo degenerale inlo an obIiging endorsemenl of
hislory or lheoIogy. The dynamic exression of }esus Chrisl in lhe
Chrislian individuaI is diminished lo lhe diclaled exercise and efforl of
moraIism and elhics. The onloIogicaI essence of }esus Chrisl in lhe
Church coIIecliveIy is reduced lo an organizalionaI enlily of eccIesias-
licism. The dynamic exression of }esus Chrisl in His ody is reIaced
vilh lhe delermined enlerrise of reIigious Ianning and rograms.
Chrislianily is lhus muliIaled and mulaled by man-made "Chrislian
reIigion" vhich has no vaIue before God (cf. CoI. 2:23).
Consider lhe serious IogicaI consequences of aIIoving Chrislianily
and Chrisl lo be lhus divided, divorced, and disinlegraled. Wilhoul
lhe recognilion of lhe onloIogicaI and dynamic conneclion and union
s;
of Chrisl and Chrislianily, lhere is an inevilabIe deficienl and defeclive
underslanding of lhe Trinily, of God's aclion in lhe Chrislian and lhe
Church lhrough lhe Son, by lhe HoIy Siril. When }esus Chrisl, lhe
Righleous One (Acls 3:14, 7:52) is searaled and severed from lhe dy-
namic exression of Chrislian righleousness, vilh lhe subsequenl in-
sislence on ious erformance of Chrislian Iiving, lhen lhe efficacy of
lhe dealh of Chrisl is denied and lhe cross is bul a redundanl, suer-
fIuous and unnecessary lragedy of hislory (cf. GaI. 2:21). When "Chris-
lian reIigion" mulales Chrislianily inlo mere moraIily generaled by lhe
seIf-efforl of human abiIily, lhen "lhe slumbIing bIock of lhe cross has
been aboIished" (GaI. 5:11), as lhe "finished vork" of Chrisl (}n. 19:30)
is Iefl unfinished, lo be comIeled by human commilmenl and abiIily.
When Chrislianily is conceived of as anylhing Iess lhal lhe onloIogicaI
resence and dynamic aclivily of lhe Iiving Lord }esus, lhen some
searaled and delached enlily is formed and formuIaled, vhelher il be
in lhoughl conslruclion or eccIesiaslicaI conslruclion, and such con-
slrucl becomes lhe ob|ecl of idoIalry. These are serious abdicalions and
aberralions lhal musl be addressed and chaIIenged.
Though some have caIIed for a "nev reformalion,"
37
such couId
mereIy imIy a re-forming of lhe exislenl lheoIogicaI beIief-syslems or
eccIesiaslicaI conslruclions, vhich vouId be inadequale. Whal ve
need is a comIele resloralion of lhe recognilion of lhe reaIily of lhe
risen Lord }esus as lhe essence and exression of Chrislianily, vhich
conslilules lhe resloralion of humanily lo God's funclionaI inlenl by
lhe indveIIing funclion of }esus Chrisl in lhe Chrislian.
The affirmalion lhal Chrislianily is Chrisl, lhal "Chrislianily is lhe
divine,"
38
is nol mereIy advocacy of anolher varianl eislemoIogicaI
ideoIogy or lhe defense of a more recise orlhodox beIief-syslem. This
is a caII lo relurn lo lhe reaIily of lhe risen and Iiving Lord }esus Chrisl
as lhe onloIogicaI essence and behavioraI exression of Chrislianily.
There viII, vilhoul a doubl, be some lheoIogicaI ob|eclivisls vho viII
alleml lo ass off lhis inlegraI Chrislocenlric emhasis as erfeclion-
islic ideaIism or sub|eclive myslicism. They viII insisl on lhe relenlion
of delached cerebraI and ecIesiaslicaI ob|eclivilies vhich deny and dis-
s
aIIov lhe reaI and vilaI siriluaI exerience of lhe Iiving Siril of
Chrisl, for lhemseIves and for olhers.
}ohn R.W. Sloll vividIy orlrays iclures in vords vhen he vriles
lhal "Chrislianily vilhoul Chrisl is a chesl vilhoul a lreasure, a frame
vilhoul a orlrail, a corse vilhoul brealh."
39
Are ve conlenl lo sil idIy
by and aIIov "Chrislian reIigion" and ils emly, sleriIe lheoIogy mis-
reresenl Chrislianily in such a IifeIess and faIIacious manner` Nov is
lhe lime lo unashamedIy affirm lhal "Chrislianily is Chrisl," and lo
vilness such ersonaIIy by aIIoving lhe resurreclion-Iife of lhe Iiving
Lord }esus lo be "manifesled in our morlaI bodies" (II Cor. 4:10,11) by
lhe grace of God unlo lhe gIory of God!

FOOTNOTE5
1 Levis, C.S., Mcrc Cnrisiianiiq. Wnai Onc Musi Bc|ictc ic Bc a Cnrisiian. Nev York: Mac-
miIIan IubIishing Co. 1978. g. 62.
2 Nevin, }ohn W., Tnc Mqsiica| Prcscncc. IhiIadeIhia: Uniled Church Iress. 1846. g.
216.
3 Torrance, Thomas I., |ca|iiq an! |tangc|ica| Tncc|cgq. IhiIadeIhia: Weslminsler Iress.
1982. g. 16.
4 Ibid., g. 18.
5 arcIay, WiIIiam. Tnc Min! cj Si. Pau|. London: Ionlana ooks. 1965. g. 87.
6 Orliz, }uan CarIos, Iiting Wiin jcsus Tc!aq. London: TriangIe ooks. 1984. gs. 18,19.
7 Weslcoll, rooke Ioss, Tnc Gcspc| cj Iijc. Tncugnis |nirc!ucicrq ic inc Siu!q cj Cnrisiian
Occirinc. London: MacmiIIan and Co.1895. g. 249.
8 ||i!. g. 250.
9 ||i!. g. 255.
10 onhoeffer, Dielrich, |inics. Nev York: MacmiIIan IubIishing Co. 1976. g. 22.
11 IIIuI, }acques, Tnc Prcscncc cj inc King!cn. IhiIadeIhia: Weslminsler Iress. 1951. g.
52.
12 Thomas, W.H. Griffilh, Cnrisiianiiq is Cnrisi. London: Longmans, Green and Co. 1916.
g. 115.
13 ||i!. g. 117.
14 ||i!. g. 118.
15 arlh, KarI, Cnurcn Ocgnaiics. Vc|. |V, Pari |, Tnc Occirinc cj |cccnci|iaiicn. Idin-
s,
burgh: T&T CIark, 1988. g. 149.
16 Thomas, Ma|. W. Ian, Tnc Sating Iijc cj Cnrisi. Grand Raids: Zondervan IubIishing
Co. 1961. g. 149.
17 arcIay, WiIIiam. cp. cii., g. 89.
18 Donfried, KarI IauI, Tnc Oqnanic Wcr!. Ncu Tcsiancni |nsignis jcr Ccnicnpcrarq Cnris-
iians. San Irancisco: Harer and Rov. 1981. g. 3.
19 Merlon, Thomas, Tnc Ncu Man. Nev York: The Noonday Iress. 1961. g. 165.
20 Levis, C.S., cp. cii. g. 64.
21 ||i!., g. 166.
22 Merlon, Thomas, cp. cii., g. 169.
23 Dunnam, Maxie, A|itc in Cnrisi. Tnc Oqnanic Prcccss cj Spiriiua| |crnaiicn. NashviIIe:
Abingdon Iress. 1982. gs. 110,111.
24 Orliz, }uan CarIos, cp. cii., g. 42.
25 Thomas, Ma|. W. Ian, cp. cii. TilIe of book.
26 onhoeffer, Dielrich, Tnc Ccsi cj Oiscip|csnip. Nev York: MacmiIIan IubIishing Co. g.
269.
27 ||i!., g. 271.
28 ||i!., g. 272.
29 HaIIer, Manfred, Cnrisi as A|| in A||. Sargenl: The SeedSovers. 1996. g. 105.
30 ||i!., g. 116.
31 ||i!., g. 118.
32 ||i!., g. 121.
33 ||i!., g. 156.
34 Weslcoll, .I., cp. cii. g. 278.
35 ||i!., g. 281.
36 Denney, }ames, jcsus an! inc Gcspc|s. Cnrisiianiiq jusiijic! in inc Min! cj Cnrisi. London:
Hodder and Sloughlon. 1908. g. 27.
37 Torrance, Thomas I., Tncc|cgq in |cccnsiruciicn. Grand Raids: WiIIiam . Ierdmans.
1965. gs. 259-283.
38 Kierkegaard, Soren, Aiiack cn Cnrisicn!cn. Irincelon: Irincelon Universily Iress. 1968.
gs. 102, 132.
39 Sloll, }ohn R.W., |ccus cn Cnrisi. Nev York: CoIIins. 1979. g. 155.

James Fowler Christianity Is Not A Religion

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

James Fowler Christianity Is Not A Religion

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

CHRISTIANITY

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen