The Fearsome Nature of Forgiveness
November 17th, 2010 § 2 Comments
by Matthew Raley
The word forgive has fallen into disuse, and we’ve substituted the phrase move on. But the two actions we describe are different.
The object of my “moving on” or “forgiving” is a wrong someone has committed against me.
To move on is to leave that wrong behind on life’s road. I strive to put my relationship with the wrong-doer on a new course. I also strive to prevent my emotions returning to the wrong, so that I stop feeling angry, resentful, or grieved. And I strive to think of myself as no longer defined by the wrong: I am not a victim.
The wrong is still there. I am choosing to ignore it.
"Prisoner," Christian Rohlfs, 1918, Museum of Modern Art
To forgive is more radical. The New Testament word aphiemi does have the idea of “letting go,” but with a greater specificity. It came to be used as a legal term for debt cancellation and divorce. A creditor’s claim no longer adhered to the debtor; a husband’s claim no longer adhered to the wife. In forgiveness, what is owed is zero.
This is the word Jesus uses when a paralytic is brought to him (Mark 2.1-12). He says to the paralytic, “My son, your sins are forgiven.” He is not saying, “God has moved on from all of the wrongs you have committed.” He is saying, “The claims against you are canceled.”
The enormity of Jesus’ statement is obvious to the religious leaders listening. “He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” To zero-out the moral debts we owe is an action only God can take. Jesus heals the paralytic to verify that he does indeed have the authority to forgive. And in doing so he is claiming to be God.
The basis of Jesus’ authority is that he “gives his life as a ransom for many,” a payment to redeem sinners from their debts (Mark 10.45).
Our “move on” method of repairing personal harm doesn’t work.
For starters, it doesn’t deal with the nature of wrong-doing. Harm leaves a debt. Unpaid debt is loss. Every time I hear someone say he has “moved on,” the very next words out of his mouth reassert the loss he bears. At one moment he pretends the loss is negligible, and at the next he proves how heavy the loss remains.
Deeper, “moving on” never discharges the wrong-doer. His wrong is still back there on the road. Let two people’s road cover ten years, and let the road be covered with harm’s wreckage, and then see how free and honest the two are after all their moving on.
We’ve probably stopped forgiving not because we don’t know what it means, but because we do know. We have no real basis for canceling debts, and we refuse to lie. We move on instead.
What would happen in our relationships if our own debts were canceled, and if we canceled each other’s debts on the basis of Christ’s payment? Christianity would happen.
Researching the “Black-Robed Regiment”
September 23rd, 2010 § Leave a Comment
by Matthew Raley
I would normally post an essay today, but I am taking more time. I’m looking into Glenn Beck’s troop of pastors, and I want the piece to be, as they say, fair and balanced. Look for it next week, and thanks for your patience.
Excellent Resource For Questions About the Pearls
March 12th, 2010 § Leave a Comment
by Matthew Raley
I just found this post by Rey Reynoso on Theologica. It is a thorough treatment of what Michael and Debi Pearl teach from a theological and exegetical perspective. Reynoso’s discussion of the Pearls’ use of Proverbs is particularly insightful.
For those who accept at face value the Pearls’ claims to be biblical, this is a post to spend time on.
Pearl Of Too Great a Price
March 10th, 2010 § 14 Comments
by Matthew Raley
"Roots of the Strangler Fig Tree," Eliot Porter, 1954, Metropolitan Museum of Art
After I criticized Michael Pearl’s teaching on parenting last week (here and here), I’ve heard a recurring question. Should we throw out a teaching that has helped so many struggling parents just because some points of doctrine are wrong?
Christian parents today are indeed struggling, often desperate to prevent their children’s falling away from Christ. Especially in the last twenty years, many have heeded the claims that righteousness is a matter of training. They want a system that yields results.
Please read this opening sentence from A. W. Tozer’s The Root of the Righteous with care:
One marked difference between the faith of our fathers as conceived by the fathers and the same faith as understood and lived by their children is that the fathers were concerned with the root of the matter, while their present-day descendants seem concerned only with the fruit.
In the criticism of Pearl’s teaching over the last several weeks, there has been a focus on the fruits of his system. But there has been a dearth of pastoral leadership calling believers back to the root of the matter.
I want to appeal to those parents who say they’ve seen fruit in applying Pearl’s teaching. I understand that you don’t want to throw the baby out with the bath. But you can’t ignore the connection between Pearl’s doctrine and practice.
A child cannot relate to God, he says. Before the “age of accountability,” a child is “too young to fathom God,” and needs a “surrogate god” in the form of a parent “until he is old enough to submit himself to The Eternal God.”
The parent, as God’s “surrogate,” purifies a child’s guilt through spanking. Pearl teaches this point in detail under the heading, “The rod purges the soul of guilt,” in his “Defense of Biblical Chastisement, Part 1.” Pearl states, “The properly administered rod is restorative as nothing else can be. It is indispensable to the removal of guilt in your child. His very conscience (nature) demands punishment, and the rod supplies the needs of his soul, releasing him from his guilt and self-condemnation.”
In this section specifically devoted to the nature of guilt and its remedy, Pearl does not mention anything about the cross of Jesus Christ. Not a single word. He says nothing about Christ purging our sin and cleansing our conscience, finally and eternally.
If you admire Pearl’s fruit, I need to ask you, “How do you believe your child is saved from sin? Can your child, right now, approach the Eternal God’s throne blameless by faith in Jesus Christ, the high priest? Or are you responsible before that throne for driving sin out of your child and making him or her righteous through training?”
To spank rightly in practice, you have to reject this teaching. If there is a baby in Pearl’s bath, she has drowned.
I also feel the need to appeal to other parents — a growing chorus — who are shocked by Pearl’s fruit.
Some of the fruit is indeed shocking. The killing of a child by people who apparently took the teaching to a logical extreme is a horror.
But what if Pearl’s fruit did not appear so vile? What if Pearl’s adherents all stayed perfectly within his stated limits for spanking? What if their fruit consisted solely of compliant, pleasant children who were helpful and never got in anyone’s way? What would we say then?
I would say this.
Those most resistant to the gospel of forgiveness by faith alone in Christ alone are the compliant people whose childhood guilt was purged by many spankings, and who never depart in adulthood from the way in which they were trained up. As Pearl himself says (in the same section cited above), a child relates “to his parents in the same manner that he will later relate to God.” Just try convincing a man trained this way that he needs, or could ever have, a Savior.
I urge my fellow critics of Pearl’s teaching to talk about the Gospel. This is the moment to contrast Pharisaical legalism with the power of Jesus Christ.
I waited too long to research Michael Pearl. I’m grieved that I reacted to fruit instead of studying more deeply. Pastors, it’s time for us to declare ourselves on the root of the matter. Our numbers are too small today (cf. this list). Join us!
Here is the root question I believe we have to raise with our congregations: “Is there any training that replaces Christ’s all-sufficient righteousness?”
Our people need to see the great price of following Pearl.
Audio: Christianity Targeted On Christ’s Return
February 17th, 2010 § Leave a Comment
by Matthew Raley
"Thy Kingdom Come," Max Pechstein, 1921, Museum of Modern Art
In this sermon, we study the last two points in the EFCA statement of faith, focusing on the imminent return of Christ to claim his people and set up his kingdom.
Audio: Christianity Expressed In Action
February 10th, 2010 § Leave a Comment
by Matthew Raley
"Steamfitter," by Lewis Hine, 1921, Metropolitan Museum of Art
There is a lot of debate about the doing of the Christian life. Should a believer wait for God to move upon him? Or should he work harder at pursuing holiness? As we study the next point in the EFCA’s statement of faith in this sermon, we talk about the engine of Christian living, and our role in tending it.
Audio: Christianity Preached By the Church
February 3rd, 2010 § Leave a Comment
by Matthew Raley
"Christ Pantokrator," Byzantine icon, 1350 or later, Metropolitan Museum of Art
As institutions, churches have become more like entertainment clearing-houses than communities of worship. In this sermon, we look at the origins of the church institutionally, origins that go back to the King himself.
Audio: Christianity Empowered By the Spirit
January 26th, 2010 § Leave a Comment
by Matthew Raley
"A Wind Swept Through the Leafless Trees," by Richard Florsheim, 1940, Art Institute of Chicago
Christians do not need new strategies for better living. The behavior-modification gospel has rendered our faith dead, and we need the power of the Spirit to sweep through our lifeless religion. In this sermon, continuing our study of the new EFCA statement of faith, we look at the doctrine of the Spirit.
Audio: Christianity Embodied By Christ
January 20th, 2010 § Leave a Comment
by Matthew Raley
"Christ Crucified with the Good Thief," attr: Francesco Allegrini, 1615-20, Metropolitan Museum of Art
In this sermon, we study two points in the EFCA doctrinal statement covering Jesus Christ and his atonement for sin. We contrast the complete freedom from sin that we have in Christ with the tepid, enslaving behavior modification ideology.
