How Can I Change?/The Battle Against Sin

From Gospel Translations

Whether or not you’ve heard the phrase, you’ve no doubt encountered therapeutic thinking. It shows up in the courtroom when a serial killer’s attorney asks for leniency on the grounds that his client was routinely abused by an alcoholic father. It claims most of us grew up in “dysfunctional” families, thus offering a ready-made explanation and excuse for our behavior. Rather than emphasizing personal responsibility, it stresses the way we’ve been psychologically affected by others or by our environment. As social scientist Dr. James Deese notes, therapeutic thinking “is so ingrained in modern American attitudes as hardly to be challenged.”^[2]

Surprisingly, the one institution best equipped to challenge the therapeutic trend has actually contributed to its popularity. I’m speaking of the Church. Rather than expose the errors of psychotherapy, the American Church in most cases has given uncritical acceptance...though there are some outspoken exceptions. In his book Biblical Medical Ethics, Dr. Franklin Payne comments, “Psychotherapy, as psychology and psychiatry, needs the most critical and detailed examination by evangelical Christians...Many Christians are influenced more by the concepts of secular psychotherapists than by the Word of God.”^[3]

I’ve met many of the Christians Dr. Payne is describing. Not long ago I was asked to speak at a men’s retreat in another church. At the end of one session I was approached by a man who introduced himself and then began telling me about his difficult situation. He had grown up in a dysfunctional family. He was a codependent. He suffered from low self-esteem. In the space of the first two minutes he must have used almost every psychological buzz word in existence.

It was an awkward encounter. I wasn’t eager to dis- agree with him or correct him. I had never met the man before, and I wanted him to experience my care and concern. But as he went on and on it seemed obvious he assumed I agreed with him. And I didn’t. Why? Though he spoke psychobabble fluently, his diagnosis omitted any reference to the “S” word....

Sin.

Such omissions regrettably are the norm today in popular Christian literature and radio talk shows. We are pursuing a deeper understanding of ourselves (as defined by the recovery movement) rather than a deeper conviction of sin (as defined in Scripture). We have become more concerned about our own needs and feelings than about the character and commands of God. No wonder we aren’t maturing as he intends.

Our Most Serious Problem

Writing a century ago, J.C. Ryle offered a sharp but simple explanation for the deficiencies he observed in the Church: “Dim or indistinct views of sin are the origin of most of the errors, heresies and false doctrines of the present day...I believe that one of the chief wants of the church in the nineteenth century has been, and is, clearer, fuller teaching about sin.”^[5]If this was accurate during his generation, how much more so today.

But we’ve gone a step further. Contemporary teaching about self-esteem has replaced the doctrine of sin. Consider this remark from one well-known author:

I don’t think anything has been done in the name of Christ and under the banner of Christianity that has proven more destructive to human personality, and hence counterproductive to the evangelistic enterprise, than the unchristian, uncouth strategy of attempting to make people aware of their lost and sinful condition.^[6]

This pastor says that labeling sin as “rebellion against God” is “shallow and insulting to the human being.”^[8]His conviction about man’s inherent worth leads him to the remarkable conclusion that a new “reformation” is in order. Where Martin Luther’s empha- sis on salvation by grace through faith transformed the Church in the sixteenth century, he argues, today’s churches must recognize the sacred right of every person to self-esteem.

I do not question the man’s sincerity, but his statements are bogus. They are, in fact, false doctrine. The modern emphasis on self-esteem has become an unacceptable alternative to the biblical doctrines of justification and sanctification.

Justification. Jesus did not die on the cross to improve our self-esteem. He died to atone for our sin. And yet the cross does teach us a crucial lesson about our worth: We are each worthy of the wrath of God. As a manifestation of God’s unmerited mercy, the cross reveals the depth and seriousness of our sin. Anthony Hoekema points this out:

In today’s world there is little emphasis on the bibli- cal doctrine of sin. But a person with a shallow sense of sin and of the wrath of God against our sin will neither feel the need for nor understand the biblical doctrine of justification. When sin is ignored, minimized or redefined we no longer live aware of our desperate need for Jesus Christ nor appreciative of what he accomplished on the cross for us.^[9]

Unless we understand the nature of sin and how offensive it is to God, we’ll never understand why the cross was necessary. We’ll never be amazed by grace.

Sanctification. A clear understanding of the doctrine of sin is imperative for sanctification as well. Scripture reveals that our most serious hindrance to growth is sin against God. The recovery movement, on the other hand, insists that unmet needs, pain, damaged emotions, or low self-esteem are the root of our difficulties. The two conclusions are irreconcilably opposed.

I am not denying the reality or severity of the pain we experience when others sin against us. It is critical I not be misunderstood here. The Bible makes numerous references to those who are afflicted and oppressed. But please understand: Pain is not our root problem. Jesus said, “For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance, and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man ‘unclean’” (Mk 7:21-23, emphasis added; see also Jas 1:14-15).

Too many of us “feel the reality of our wounds more than the fact of our sin.”11 But if we genuinely want to be conformed to the image of Jesus Christ, this will have to change. Our freedom and maturity depend on it. The therapeutic model misdiagnoses our root problem, and thus proves incapable of providing an effective solution. But once we recognize sin as the source of our problem, suddenly we have a scriptural solution and biblical hope for change. It’s called the doctrine of sanctification.

Mowing Your Own Lawn

Sanctification is a lifelong process of repentance (not recovery) and obedience (not inner healing) that results in holiness (not wholeness) for the glory of God (not personal fulfillment). This doctrine is succinctly stated in Colossians 3:1-17. If you haven’t already done so, please take a minute to read that passage before you continue.

It’s important to see the transition Paul is making in this third chapter. The first two chapters of Colossians emphasize the supremacy and sufficiency of Christ. He stresses this again at the beginning of Chapter 3. Paul consciously refrained from teaching the Colossians about sanctification until they had first understood Christ’s work for them and within them. Until they grasped what it meant to be reconciled to and regenerated by God, he knew they would not be properly motivated by grace.

Neither will we. This is why the second and third chapters of this book highlight regeneration and our union with Christ. We have also written a book on the doctrine of justification called This Great Salvation. Like Paul, we want to motivate by grace. Once that foundation is established, then we can pursue godliness without straying toward legalism or license.

Paul defines the process of sanctification with two striking phrases: We are to “rid ourselves” of sin and “clothe ourselves” with righteousness (Col 3:8,12). It is only because of what Christ has accomplished on the cross and the miracle of regeneration that we are able to obey these com- mands.And yet those two supernatural imperatives now leave us without excuse. If grace does not result in godliness, then we have not accurately under- stood grace. God fully expects us to change, grow, and mature. As F.F. Bruce exhorts, “Now be (in actual practice) what you now are (by a divine act).”^[11]