On Personal Relationship

Recently, some friends and I were discussing faith and "personal relationship" over Facebook when I was reminded of a similar conversation in which I was a participant some months ago. I've included portions of the earlier correspondence below to help clarify some of my thoughts (obviously drawn from others) on faith and our right relationship with the Creator. More on this topic to follow...

...When the Westminster Shorter Catechism asks "What is the chief end of man?" - the answer (drawn from Scripture), "Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy Him for ever." alludes to a personal relationship with God through the exhortation to "enjoy Him forever". Such a relationship is both corporate and personal with the object of focus being extraspective or outward (on Christ) instead of introspective or self-examining. I submit that every person - atheist and Christian alike - is in relationship with God (Rm 1:21). If you accept this proposition, the nature of that relationship must be questioned; is God near in wrath or forgiveness? Because of Christ's work on the cross, Christians alone are able to proclaim that God comes near to them in forgiveness - having been declared righteous by their Savior. Such is the good news of the Gospel! Our right relationship with God is reinforced every Sunday when God draws near to us in forgiveness through His Word and Sacraments; ink, wine, and bread. This is where our certainty, our belongingness is strengthened and confirmed. If we are truly His sheep, God draws near to us in forgiveness whilst reserving His judgment for the unbeliever. Speaking of God's relational nearness to the unbeliever, R.C. Sproul dismisses the popular notion of hell as the place where sinners are cast away from the presence of God. Instead, Sproul argues that God is very much present in hell and directly in relationship with its citizens...in judgment. Hell, according to Sproul, is where God's wrath is manifested through His drawing near in judgment.

Which leads me to my next thought; our relationship with God is more a matter of justification (God drawing near in forgiveness) and faith than of sanctification. Princeton theologian, John Gresham Machen, makes a similar case in his book "Christianity and Liberalism" in which he contends that relationships are functions of trust. Trust, in turn, requires - depends upon - knowledge of the person at the other end of the relationship.

"It is vain, then, to speak of reposing trust in the Person without believing the message. For trust involves a personal relationship between the one who trusts and him in whom the trust is reposed. And in this case the personal relation is set by the blessed theology of the cross...The truth is that when men speak of trust in Jesus’ person, as being possible without acceptance of the message of his death and resurrection, they do not really mean trust at all. What they designate as trust is really admiration and reverence."

Put another way, "You can't rely on someone about whom you've determined to know nothing" (Kim Riddlebarger). Our right relationship with God necessitates our knowledge of and assent to, the doctrinal truths of the Bible - in addition to our trusting in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Without such an understanding, Christ is easily demoted to the "embodiment of the good man, the one who lives for others, the one who is ultimately to be admired and, if possible, emulated" (Carl Trueman, Christianity, Liberalism and the New Evangelicalism). A right understanding of faith necessarily links knowledge with trust - instead of pitting them against each other as is so often the case in American evangelicalism ("not head knowledge, but heart knowledge", or as D.L Moody famously quipped: "My theology! I didn't know I had any"). In his article, "Check the Credentials!", Michael Horton comments upon the ignorant state of American evangelicalism:

"Because we do not have the resevoir [sic] of knowledge from which to draw concerning God's attributes, Christ's person and work, the events of saving history--in other words, the objective, cognitive content of the Scriptures--we lack confidence in God. And so, lacking that knowledge and confidence, we simply will ourselves to believe, in spite of our ignorance. This is why foreign observers have remarked that "faith in faith is a characteristically American heresy...."

He closes with the provocative line: "Your faith will grow only in proportion to your growth in knowledge." (Phil 1:9) Knowledge as used here should not be confused with the empty pursuit of scholarly minutiae obtained to better one's standing amongst peers - but rather to mean knowledge of God obtained through meditating on (out loud - to hagah!), chewing on His Word (Prov. 1:7, 1:29, 15:4, etc..., Hos 4:6, Rom 1:28, 10:2). Scripture reading (listening), memorization and the fruits of that labor. It is from His Word that we are able to know more of His attributes and on the person and work of Jesus Christ. Because we did not meet Jesus, shaking hands with him as did the apostles; our relational experience with God must - must - come from Scripture alone. Calvin puts it thus:

"Many foolishly invent for themselves a faith confused and without any understanding of the Gospel. No word is more commonplace among the Papists than 'believe,' but it is said without the knowledge of Christ gained from hearing and understanding the Gospel."

In sum, I concur with the original question; it is "possible that a person knows all of the rules and hides behind them (knowingly or unknowingly)". However, I would add that a right relationship with God is impossible without knowledge of Him.

----- Original Message -----

...Is it possible that a person knows all of the rules and hides behind them (knowingly or unknowingly)? Is it possible that a person has been in church every Sunday for 20 years and has yet to be known by the One who loves them most and best? Is it possible that there is no relationship at all?

Email Archives: Christocentric Theology

Occasionally I run across emails that I've written or which have been sent to me which make for good blog material. As I find and post these, I'll add the "Email Archives" label to them. Google Desktop helped me find this one - sent in early 2008 to a group of believers who used to meet each week to discuss theology:

---

I've been reading (and listening) a lot lately to several theologians who are unpacking "Christocentric theology". For me, this is simply an outgrowth of covenant theology - but it also bears strong Lutheran (and others) influence. In short, Christocentric theology teaches that Christ is at the center of the entire Bible - Genesis to maps. All Scripture points - either forward or backward - to Jesus as Messiah. As an example - beginning immediately after the fall in (Genesis 3:14,15) God promises Eve an offspring (Messiah) who will crush the head of the serpent:

"And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."

From this account onward, Scripture is filled with prophesies, types, and shadows - all pointing to Christ. The most complex and amazing plotline ever developed. Moses served as a "type" of Christ; as did Joshua, David, Elijah, etc... Thus, I tend to react negatively when a Biblical figure such as Joshua is taught as an example of leadership - or when we’re charged to emulate star qualities ("dare to be a Daniel") of a particular character in redemptive history. Yes, Joshua was a leader, and yes, Daniel was courageous - but more importantly - they foreshadowed Christ - serving as role players in the story of Jesus. An understanding of Christ’s roles as prophet, priest, and king are of vital import. Thus, when I read Scripture I don’t see a character study - but rather a series of Messianic prophesies and their fulfillment. Building on the theme, Christ’s exemplary life is of secondary importance to the work that He performed on the cross for our sins. Christ’s substitutionary atonement is the "good news" that we are to proclaim. The Gospel message (theology of the cross) should never be confused with "you too can become a better person" (theology of glory). Muslims who respect Jesus as a prophet would do well to try to emulate His life (even lifestyle) - and they would probably admit as much. Ghandi did when he quipped:

"I like your Christ, but not your Christians"

Who doesn't find the popular characterization of Christ as appealing across culture boundaries? Everyone would do well to emulate Christ (where possible; His most important acts cannot be followed!). The snag comes with the "offense" (scandal) of the cross. This is where the Muslims draw the line; they don’t want any part of Christ as Messiah. His character traits - sure. His redemptive role as prophet, priest, and king? No way. This sacrifice and its implications are distinctly Christian. The atonement is at the front and center of Christianity; all else pales in comparison. Which is why I insist on hearing Christ and His atoning work preached *every* Sunday. This is not to say that the story of the cross is weekly repeated - but rather, the week’s passages interpreted as they point to Christ and His work on the cross. Christocentric preaching. Whether we’re studying Lamentations or Revelations - the focus of the service should be on Christ and his atoning work. Towards this point, I'm reminded of the scorn with which one of my Lutheran friends views sermon titles; in his words, every sermon should be titled "Christ and His Atoning Work" - as if anything else warrants mention. Christocentric theology in action!