Value and Vulnerability
By George “Chip” Hammond
Theology is important. In the broadest terms a particular church’s theology is its foundation philosophy. What the church values, how it prioritizes, and how it sets about doing its tasks, and the tasks it sets about doing is a product of its theology-philosophy. Theology is important. But theology is not methodology, a fact that is often not appreciated. Orthodox Presbyterian Christians can be relatively good at theology, but they have sometimes confused theology with methodology.
A case in point is Cornelius Van Til’s idea of “antithesis.” Believing thought and unbelieving thought are so different, Van Til said, that looking at the same tree the believer sees a made-by-God tree and the unbeliever sees a not-made-by-God tree. This antithesis is a philosophical antithesis. Unfortunately, some (many?) Reformed Christians have turned the philosophy into a methodology. The contours it takes look something like this: since believing thought and unbelieving thought are in antithesis, the task of the Christian is to tell his unbelieving neighbor how wrong he is on virtually every subject. This has the added “benefit” of “convincing” his unbelieving neighbor that he is a spiritual and intellectual dolt who can’t do anything right and can’t think straight, and so is desperately in need of God’s grace.
Orthodox Presbyterian Churches may have good reputation for many things, but their success in bringing people to Christ who didn’t know Him before is generally not one of them. The reason is the confusion between theology and methodology. Theological foundation does not necessarily mean (and often doesn’t mean) methodological order.
Lessons from the First General Assembly
It can be fairly said that Acts 15 is about the Church’s first General Assembly, since the whole Church is represented there in her elders and apostles. The question before the Assembly was an important one: must one be circumcised and observe the Law of Moses before one can be saved?
Paul and Barnabas had been traveling the Mediterranean basin appealing directly to gentiles, calling them to faith in Christ and baptizing them into the Church, bypassing the Law of Moses. But other Christians from Judea had gone to Antioch and were telling people that they first be circumcised and observe the Law of Moses (Acts 15:1-5).
The importance of this issue is underappreciated. Theologically, the must-obey-the-Law-of-Moses party had the upper hand, and their theology was not different than Paul’s. What would Paul and company, and the must-first-keep-the-law-of-Moses party agree on? They would agree that no one can be justified by keeping the Law, and that through the Law comes knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20). They would agree that the Law is powerless to reconcile people to God (Romans 8:3). They would agree that sin’s power comes from the Law (1 Corinthians 15:56).
These Jewish Christians knew the futility of finding acceptance with God through the Law (otherwise they would not be Christians). They knew that acceptance with God was found through Jesus Christ. They knew that being under the Law had convicted them of their sin and made them see the hopelessness of it, and that Jesus came to provide – in fact to be – the solution. Theologically, Jesus is the answer to the problem of sin. They reasoned therefore that methodologically one first had to come under the Law of Moses to be made fully aware of sin before he could trust in Christ to be delivered from it.
It makes perfect sense. Except that it’s wrong. And the first General Assembly, guided by the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28) saw that it was wrong. The brothers on the wrong side did not have a bad theology, but rather a bad methodology, one that did not consider the human heart and mind.
Fear’s Denial
The church at Rome was an interesting case study. For reasons I won’t go into, the church had a contingent of Jesus followers from Jewish and Gentile backgrounds that had been separated for a time. Their reintegration was the occasion of friction. As Paul seeks to untangle their tension, he makes some observations that show a keen insight into the human psyche.
He tells us that people without the Law nevertheless see God’s revelation of himself in the world around them (Romans 1:19-20) and by their own conscience (Romans 2:14-15). He tells us that all people apart from the Law know that there is a God, that he has a standard, and that we have not lived up to it. What this revelation of God in creation and in our own consciences does not and cannot tell us is how we, now that we have been alienated from God, can be reconciled to him.
When people sense a problem but believe that absolutely nothing can be done to fix the problem, they can either lay down and die of depression, or they can push out of their minds that there is any problem at all. In other words, people deny God and suppress their knowledge of him because having sinned, they are afraid to face him because they can see no remedy. They hide from him, as Adam did in the Garden (Genesis 3:8). They become so good at the suppression and the hiding that many of them really deceive themselves into believing that there is no God (“and therefore I don’t have to face Him”).
So if they deny their sin, wouldn’t it be a good idea to make them embrace the Law first? Through the Law will come knowledge of their sin, and is that not the necessary, logical order for them to saved? Don’t they need the Law so they can see their sin and see the despair of trying to be saved by the Law in order to see their need for Jesus and trust in him? So they were saying, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the Law of Moses” and “Unless you are circumcised you cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1, 5).
Value and Vulnerability
Paul’s theology was not different, but his methodology was: tell them the gospel right up front and call them to faith in Jesus. Paul understood the human heart and mind and understood that theology and methodology are two different things. Paul understood what makes the gospel so powerful.
The admission of sin requires vulnerability. Unless someone knows they are valued, they are unlikely to admit vulnerability. Think about the people you are willing to be vulnerable with. They are people you trust, people you know who love you and have your interests at heart. You would be unlikely to be vulnerable with an enemy, with someone who would use that knowledge against you, or judge and condemn you in the vulnerability.
The gospel does not start with vulnerability, with a tyrant coming and choking out of the debtor his weakness, shouting “pay me what you owe.” It starts with value. “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whoever believes in him would not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through him” (John 3:16-17). “You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom 5:6-8).
The gospel starts with an announcement to those who are alienated from God: “God loves you and sent his Son to die to reconcile you to himself. You are highly valued.” The announcement kicks the legs out from under sinners. All defenses fall away for those who hear the message and take it to heart because there is nothing to be defensive about. God has already provided the solution, and you do not need to be afraid.
The announcement of value enables vulnerability.
Apart from the gospel people worm and wiggle. They deny their sin, or they deny God’s very existence because to admit either – to be vulnerable – is to invite judgment. But the gospel says, “Because you are highly valued, because you are loved, Christ took your judgement. There is now no condemnation, no alienation, nothing but the love of God for you.” When a person realizes this, she can look her sin full in the face, can admit its horror, but be unafraid of the consequences of it because Jesus has already taken the consequences, and the impetus for the whole thing was the love of God – you are highly valued.
Our Theology and Methodology
The so-called Judaizers believed in Jesus as the way of salvation, and their theology was good: Sin is the problem, Jesus is the solution. Theologically, that is the order.
Methodologically it cannot be. It will never work. People will not admit vulnerability unless they know they are valued. The gospel assures people of their value to God. God valued people so highly he gave His own Son to die for them.
Is that the message we convey to people? Or are we so focused on good theology that we engage in bad methodology? The right order – the order of the apostle Paul, ratified and certified by the first General Assembly under the guidance of the Holy Spirit – is the assurance of value first, which enables vulnerability. That is the gospel.
When you have opportunity to tell people the gospel what are you starting with? Do you start with, “You are a great sinner, and totally depraved,” or do you start with “You are highly valued”?
