As part of my requirements for this seminary term, I am reading Douglas Moo’s commentary on Romans. Today, in his discussion of Romans 5:10, I ran across the following with regard to our reconciliation with God:

The language of reconciliation is seldom used in other religions because the relationship between human beings and the deity is not conceived there in the personal categories for which the language is appropriate. (p.311)

This caught my attention, and as I began to ponder it, I immediately thought of God walking with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

This points to a couple of the important things that distinguishes our God from other gods: He is a personal God, and He is interested in fellowship with the persons that He has created. His interest in us is so great that when the fellowship was broken because of our sin, then even though we were ungodly and helpless, He sent Jesus Christ to die in our place that we might be justified and reconciled to God.

Who is like unto our God?

I hope that you have a blessed Lord’s Day.

I have often observed that, especially in ambiguous situations, we tend to see what we expect to see. For example, in personal relationships, we tend to interpret a person’s ambiguous comment in light of how we expect the person to behave towards and speak to us.

I do not recall considering a similar predilection with regard to Biblical interpretation and theology … until now. As part of my seminary class assignments, I am currently reading Bock’s Three Views on the Millenium and Beyond (Zondervan 1999). In Craig Blaising’s main piece on premillenialism, I ran across a term, “preunderstanding,” that was new to me. Here is an excerpt of what Blaising wrote:

[In certain cases] ideas are already present in the mind of one who begins to research and study what the Bible teaches on the subject. In hermeneutics, this phenomenon is called preunderstanding—the understanding one has about a subject before researching it, or the understanding one has about what a text is probably saying before one begins to study it. …

… Many times we find that our preunderstanding about what Scripture teaches on a subject is confirmed, deepened, and strengthened through further research and study in God’s Word. But what if that preunderstanding is wrong? The problem is that we are inclined to favor our preunderstanding. In so doing, we are apt to pass over contrary signals in the text and try to harmonize something of what it says with our predisposed way of viewing it. When we are done, we may falsely declare our view as supported by the text, even bolstered by the illusion that we have grown in our understanding of the matter. (pp. 164-65) (footnotes omitted).

The context in which Blaising was writing was the spiritual vision model of our eternal hope in Christ. However, the point is obviously a general one.

While reading through earlier portions of the book, I had come across instances in which it seemed that a Scripture passage was being stretched and strained to make the desired point. I wondered whether the writer would have reached the stated interpretation of the text had he not already held his particular millenial view. When I read Blaising’s discussion of preunderstanding, those instances came to mind, and it “clicked.”

We humans tend to get invested in positions that we have long held (or that our parents/pastors/teachers/churches have held and conveyed to us). Once we do, it can be challenging to view a text or topic dispassionately. Yet we need to cultivate the discipline of doing so. Our duty to be faithful to Scripture demands no less.

[T]he things which are seen are temporal,
but the things which are not seen are eternal.
— 2 Corinthians 4:18

As I write this, today is Election Day. Truth be told, I have been rather discouraged at the prospect, for I am unhappy with the nominees of both major political parties. I do not find reason to believe that either one has an adequate grasp of or commitment to the God-given rights of life, liberty, and property or the fundamental principles of limited, Constitutional government on which our federal republic was founded. Yet some perspective is important.

The rights of life, liberty, and property are temporal rights. As important as they are—and they are extremely important—they relate to our existence in this life only. Property may be successfully guarded and protected, or it may be lost or stolen. Regardless, it cannot be taken with us: at death we leave it all. Liberty may be lost, and one human may be enslaved by another. At death, however, such slavery ends. Government abuse of life and other individual rights, as terrible as it can be, also ends at the grave.

But the end of our physical lives on this earth is not the end of our entire existence, for we have souls that continue beyond the grave. That which is eternal transcends that which is temporal, both in nature and in importance. Jesus made this clear during His life among us. For example, He said:

“Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matthew 10:28)

When I left home yesterday morning on my way to work, I began to notice the election signs. Thoughts of the election came to mind, but they quickly vanished: another issue was dominating my thinking. My wife had run across a blog post by someone we had come across elsewhere in cyberspace. The post quotes a list of items on religious definition, one of which asserts an overly expansive view of what it means to be a Christian. The ensuing comments and discussion only made things worse, presenting a distorted definition of Christian and a distorted picture of the Gospel. This is a major problem, and it was weighing heavily on my mind.

Campaign rhetoric, especially the smoke, mirrors, exaggerations, and lies, may obscure the truth about candidates and issues. It may even contribute to our making bad choices. Yet those election choices relate to the here and now: it is our temporal life, liberty, and property that is at stake. Further, those chosen have terms that will end, and there will be opportunities for new choices and change.

There is a great deal of rhetoric today with regard to spiritual choices. The spiritual smoke, mirrors, exaggerations, and lies, if you will, may contribute to our being deceived and making bad spiritual choices. But such choices regarding the truth or falsity of religion are far more significant. Jesus asked:

“For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul? For what will a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Mark 8:36-37)

Judging truth or falsity in religion is critical business. Our eternal destinies are at stake, and those choices are irrevocable. Get deceived here, and the resulting error can have fatal consequences: eternal death and damnation.

Writing in his 1994 book, Reckless Faith, in which he dealt extensively with the nature of Christianity and the Gospel, Pastor John MacArthur wrote:

Christianity, if true at all, is exclusively true. Inherent in the claims of Christ is the assertion that He alone offers truth—and all religious systems that deviate from His truth are false. Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me” (John 14:6). . . . If this is true, every other religion is a lie.

Reckless Faith at 92 (emphasis in original). That is not politically correct talk in a relativistic and pluralistic age, but the key question is whether it is true.

We must know the truth, and we must clearly and accurately label both truth and error. We dare not allow equivocal or other imprecise language to cloud our definitions and analysis. We dare not mislabel that which is not Christian as Christian and that which is not the true gospel as the Gospel, no matter how moral or sincere the adherents may be, no matter how much the relativistic and pluralistic spirit of the age condemns such exclusive and divisive talk and calls for unity, and no matter how much we wish to reach them with the truth. When we do otherwise, we not only demean the Gospel, but we risk deceiving ourselves and others as to the nature of Christianity, the Gospel, and salvation. As stated previously, such deception and the resulting error can have fatal consequences.

How does this tie back to the election? I am still unhappy about the choices in this election and the treatment of the fundamental issues. But today’s winner gets only a four-year term, and we will get to choose again. But certain spiritual choices have everlasting consequences, and it is far more important that we get those right. Those who are Christians should know this and should conduct themselves accordingly.

Riding the bus to work some time back, I noticed a car with several religious bumper stickers, as well as the Ichthus, displayed on the back. The bumper sticker that caught my attention read simply, “Try Jesus.” As I began to consider that short clause, it began to bother me–greatly. As I have continued to think about these issues, my concerns have come to focus on two main areas: (1) the accuracy of the impression that it conveys about Jesus Christ and (2) what such usage says about those who use it.

Inaccurate Message

What is the likely message communicated to those who do not already know Jesus Christ? As an aside, I choose the word impression, for I question whether there is enough there to convey any significant detail regarding the nature and role of Jesus Christ. Even so, the clause has meaning. Let us consider it in light of common usage.

Often, as I finish my morning commute and leave the subway station near my workplace, I am greeted by someone offering me a “free trial,” a sample of some product. The company behind the product wants me to try it and hopes that I will like it enough to purchase it in the future. Other times I am offered a brochure inviting me to visit a shop and purchase the food or other goods being sold there. “Try it! You’ll like it.” That is the pitch, at least. The fact is, however, that we do not always like it. We sample foods, and while some appeal to us, others do not. We try potential solutions, and while some work for us, others do not. If they do not, we just move onward. This gets to part of what bothers me about the message here.

From reading a simple “Try Jesus,” one who does not know Him could readily sense that He is optional, that we can choose to take Him or leave Him at our discretion. No sense of obligation is evident here, nor is any commitment suggested by the message. Rather, should Jesus not work for you, you could simply move on to someone or something else that might. In that vein the apparent motivation or focus seems to be finding a solution to something.

Yet as to Jesus Christ, such notions are just not right. Thus, to the extent that this is what is communicated, the reader is left with a dangerous misimpression. In fact, Jesus is not merely another solution to try. He is the Almighty God, our Creator and King. We cannot properly view our Sovereign Lord as optional; the two concepts are totally inconsistent. “Optional Lord” is an oxymoron.

Further, while we all face problems in this life and have a life-threatening problem (sin) that only He can address for us, to view Him as simply a “fix” is also incorrect. One major problem is that it focuses on me and emphasizes what I can get out of the relationship. Another is that it does not account for the fact that, even before we had a sin problem requiring a solution, we were created to have a relationship with Him. To the extent “trying Jesus” accomplishes something in our lives, it is because of who He is, and it is who He is that makes Him non-optional.

Inadequate Attention

My second concern relates to what such usage says about those who use it. It suggests at least two things, as I see it.

First, it suggests inattention to the whole of the message conveyed. I do not doubt that those who display this message are seeking to bring positive attention to Christ. The motivation, the desired end, is good. Yet the entire message conveys a false impression of Christ, and that is, of course, not good. I do not suggest that there is no element of truth in the message, but we must not let the element of truth and the apparently good motives blind us to the problem: the end does not justify the means. Fundamentally, we need to be serious about meaning. When communicating with those who do not know the Lord Jesus, we must be careful to present Him accurately. With issues of God and eternity, errors can be deadly.

Second, the usage suggests inattention to our role as ambassadors for Jesus Christ. We are not independent of God, either in our existence or in our duty. As a general matter, it is important how (in what manner and in what terms) ambassadors represent the sovereigns they serve. Is this any less true of Christ Jesus, “who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords” (1Timothy 6:15b)?

Conclusion

I spent some time seeking a good short-form alternative to “Try Jesus” but finally stopped without finding something satisfactory. Using short messages carries the inherent risk of oversimplifications that result in misimpressions. I see that often in my line of work: shortening the message can result in the loss of information necessary to an accurate understanding of the issues. I see that happening here. The gospel of Jesus Christ and our need of Him and the gospel seem not to shorten well. We would do well to keep that in mind.