Moral Principles

Moral Principles and Purpose of Church

Previous Home Next Table of Contents

8. Moral Principles and the Purpose of the Church Redefined

Nonetheless, these reinterpretations do not only change the doctrines concerning Jesus and His work, they also have an affect on the purpose of the church and the ethical and moral principles which guides its members. When Scripture is viewed via the existential or humanistic modal, a positive view of man’s nature is given. The idea of the total sinful inclination of man is not stressed. Instead some supposed inherent ability to choose good over sin is stressed. The idea of man’s inability to improve himself, as demonstrated in history, is side-stepped for an optimistic view of man’s potential. While the Scriptures will be used, they are not looked upon as infallible “musts,” but rather point to ways to actualize authentic existence. This is brought out by James Coleman commenting on existentialism.

In choosing what sort of person to become, we are seen as having

absolute freedom; even refusing to choose represents a choice. Thus

the locus of valuing is within each individual. We are inescapably the

architects of our own lives....It requires courage to break away

from old patterns if need be and to stand on one’s own. In a very

real sense, the freedom to shape one’s essence is “both our agony

and our glory.”

Some people lack “the courage to be” - to seek and follow new

paths that offer greater possibilities for self-fulfillment. Often they

do not want their essence to be left up to them; rather they seek some

outside authority, such as religion or their social group to advise

them on what to believe or how to act....For to flee from ones

freedom and responsibility to life is to be inauthentic, to show

bad faith, and to live in despair. (p. 70-71)

A few words are in order concerning this quotation. When this type of idea concerning man is applied to the church, the proclamation and values which are held are no longer expounded dogmatically. In the place of authoritative exposition comes the quest of trying to get people to choose the kind of person they want to be. In other words, this approach changes or reinterprets the gospel characters and events to fit the modern ideal of what it means to live authentically. Preachers do not try to tell their hearers what they ought to believe and what is true, they simply try to guide their hearers into making some kind of responsible choice which will be categorized as authentic.

The problem with this approach is it suggests that the preacher or prophet has no right to say what it right or wrong. However, it is not a matter of the preacher being right or wrong, it is a matter of divine revelation. I, nor anyone else, is denying or hindering a person’s individuality by telling them the truth. It is not an attempt to make a person inauthentic when they are told true principles and values which they should build their life around. Furthermore, the fact that people are seeking some outside authority is not that they necessarily are refusing to live responsibly. On the contrary, often it is a humble admission that in trying to seek their own essence, in trying to choose what sort of person to be, they have failed. Thus, when a person comes to Scripture or to those who claim to be ambassadors of God’s truth, they are seeking a reference point, a “plumb-line” if you will, by which they can measure their life. Equally, not just any type of measurement will do. Man has lived up to the standards that many others have advocated and still felt uncertain and unsure. Only an authority whose nature is beyond ours, whose knowledge goes beyond our limited perspective, who knows the future and is its author, can truly satisfy the seeking of one who is tired of being the “architect” of their life. At this point, Jesus does not step in to show man what real manhood is. Jesus shows that man is a sinner and in need of salvation which he came to provide for man. Jesus shows that man cannot choose his “being” into the “Kingdom of God” by himself or by his own wisdom. Man must wait for Jesus, the King of Kings, to establish His eternal Kingdom at some future point. At this point, the individual comes to Scripture and begins to prepare himself for his glorious redemption while proclaiming the Kingdom of God is nigh. However, as was seen in the above quote, the ideal for man is seen as him being the architect of his own life. For a person to become dependent upon the Scriptures, an outside authority, is considered as inauthentic.

The task at this point is to see where the authority lies in this type of approach to morality and ethics. It is certain in the above suggestion that each person becomes the author of his own ethic. Indeed, it does take courage to break with sound biblical exhortations, yet this is the very “courage,” as some call it, that is causing the church to become more ungodly and unrighteous. It also leads to the idea that when a person comes to a Scriptural value or ethic which has been traditionally received, if he feels given his life experience and situation that the value is no longer valid, then the biblical standard can be changed for one which is more “intelligible” or meaningful.

Equally alarming is the basic premise implied in the idea that man has the power for reformation. This is the idea that man’s nature is basically good, one which is not inclined to evil. This is against the Scriptural truth concerning man whose path is said to end in destruction and that he does not seek God (Proverbs 14:12; Romans 3:11). Since the idea of man being able to choose for himself has been adequately dealt with by others, a quotation will be sufficient for the present argument. Charles Hodge has written:

They mean and expressly assert that man, as his nature now is, is

perfectly able to change his own hear, to repent and lead a holy

life; that the only difficulty in the way of his so doing is the want of

inclination, controllable by his own power....The Scriptures never

thus address fallen men and assure them of their ability to deliver

themselves from the power of sin. (Vol 2, p. 266)

To suggest that man has power to choose or deliver himself from sin, even if he is somehow mystically moved by the “myths” of Jesus, is to suggest that the Israelites had the power in themselves to be delivered from the bondage and hand of Pharaoh.

Another problem when man is said to choose for himself is the way Scripture will be subjectively interpreted with regard to its exhortations and ethics. Not all will be accepted simply because it is found in the Word of God. This, however, brings up an interesting and important facet of the subjective position of Scriptural interpretation. In this position, it might be said that there are both “conservative” and “liberal” reinterpreters. Some may be considered even as “very conservative.” The reason is not that they necessarily have full confidence in Scripture and submit themselves to it, rather, by using some other standard, they have determined that most of its truths are applicable for today. Some things can be dismissed, such as speaking in tongues, as only for the first century. At any rate, these interpreters are more exclusive in what they will dismiss as myth or as unimportant. On the other hand, there are liberal reinterpreters. These are very open and prone to dismiss large sections of Scripture. Both groups, however, will use Scripture to their benefit as they see best for their purposes. Both groups will use Scripture to help people achieve their potential in life while benefiting the welfare of society.

This difference is best seen in different church’s. Some church’s characterized by much “freedom” will allow all types of individuals with all kinds of sins and beliefs to sit in their fellowship, even though it is known that such lifestyles or beliefs are condemned in Scripture. Tolerance and acceptance are the two virtues which are exalted as being definitive of love. Church’s with a more “conservative” approach to what they will let “slide” are more particular about the lifestyles of its members. There is a degree of tolerance but also a certain ethical standard to be maintained. The problem with both these groups, however, is that underlying their type of practice, Scripture cannot be truly said to be the final authority. Some other standard is actually guiding the affairs of the assembly. Many times it is the preacher’s discernment of what is popular with the congregation and what types of truth will cost him his position if he submitted to the truth. Whatever the case, when the practice of the church and its interpretation of the Bible is derived in a subjective approach to Scripture, the authority is no longer God’s Word or even Jesus Christ.

A side result from this type of subjective approach is that the congregation becomes filled with lost individuals who never have any intention of coming into subjection to God’s Word. I can only think of the lamentation of Jeremiah when he state, “The adversary hath spread out his hand upon all her pleasant things: for she hath seen that the heathen entered into her sanctuary, whom thou didst command that they should not enter into thy congregation” (Lamentation 1:10 KJV). If it be argued that this passage refers to the Court of the Israelites and beyond, with particular reference to the Holy of Holies, I ask what else should the assembly be like when the church meets with God? The church is meant to be a glorious representation of God’s holiness on earth. Yet how does it look when it is filled and tainted by the witness of every ungodly vice and passion? This is only to be expected, however, when God’s Word is either accepted or rejected as individuals choose their own values.

Another truth about this subjective approach is that the values and ethics which are reinterpreted must also change with those who come after as needed. If they did not, the possibility of man living inauthentically would be the result. This is because in this view the nature of man is always “becoming.” In other words, man is continuingly redefining himself, and thus his values. Jean-Sarte expresses this truth.

Neither will an existentialist think that a man can find help through

some sign being vouchsafed upon earth for his orientation: for he

thinks that the man himself interprets the sign as the chooses. (p. 34)

Rollo May says:

There is no such thing as truth or reality for a living human being

except as he participates in it, is conscious of it, has some relationship

to it. ( p. 14)

Kierkegarrd suggests:

...the truth that mankind seeks cannot be settled once and for all.

It cannot be a set of permanently valued proposition or a list of

eternally significant rules. The dynamic value of self, his standard,

prevents that. Hence, his truth must be growing, changing,

coming to be as event. (Borowitz, p. 31-32)

The result of the above subjective approach to the values and morality of Scripture can only lead to a variety of interpretations among the church’s membership. The exhortations and imperatives come to mean whatever a person decides they mean, so long as it falls within some broad category of authentic existence, such as, loving my neighbor as myself. This last biblical principle is rarely interpreted in a biblical sense but is invariably interpreted by an existential or social value. No doubt, it was this type of scriptural approach which allowed Kierkegarrd to suggest the following:

The commands of God are neither the aesthetic fiat, “Do what you must,”

not the ethical instruction, “These are the things which you may or

must not do,” but the call of duty, “Choose to do what at this moment

in this context I am telling you to do. (Auden, p. 16)

The idea is that the commands and principles have validity only as they impress upon a person to pursue what they fell they are telling him to do. Then it is the responsibility to do it and do it boldly. It is no doubt this is the reason why so many will say without hesitation, “God told me to do or say this.” Often these commands and intuitions contradict the exhortations of Scripture. This is why women can say they are called to preach and lead the local assembly. This is why so much that is supposively God directed and illuminated only leads to the glory of the person who claims the authority. The glorification of man, however, is the goal of existentialism anyway.

No doubt, one must wonder for what purpose all the exhortations and imperatives are provided in Scripture. My contention is they were left to provide an infallible and inerrant guide for the life and conduct of the church. This, however, is ridiculed as being an inauthentic expression of the dynamic of life. This type of criticism is not new for the church. In 1901, in the Sunday School Times, the infallible view of Scripture was rejected for a more subjective approach to Scripture.

The man who mourns because infallibility cannot be had in church, or

a guide, or a set of standards, does not know when he is well off.

How could God develop our minds, our power of moral judgment,

if there was no spirit to be tried ( I John 4:1), no necessity for

discrimination, no discipline of search and challenge and choice?

(Strong, p.208)

What this suggests is that all the Scriptures provide are “food for thought,” a textbook which is only useful for giving man another opinion about what is truth to be compared with his already burdened conscious. This is foolish. It ought to be evident that it is through submission to and trust of the precepts and truths of Scripture that man learns to discern between right and wrong. Great discernment is the result where an individual has learned to try the spirits by God’s revealed truth rather than opinions, feelings, or intuitions which can be wrong. It is no doubt the spirit of the above quotation that needs to be tried and discerned for its true source.

Another problem in the existential approach to morality is in the nature of commitment. The commitment, the choice to choose authentic existence, is not to a certain and exact set of values and principles found in Scripture, although a “conservative” existentialist might adhere to more than a “liberal.” The commitment is to self, to man’s potential and to those around the person in society. The commitment is to what the person wants to be and believes is possible. Jean-Sarte explains this point in this way:

Whereas the existentialist says that the coward makes himself cowardly,

and the hero makes himself heroic; and that there is always a possibility

for the coward to give up cowardice and for the hero to stop being a

hero. What counts is the total commitment, and it is not by a

particular case or particular action that you are committed altogether.

(p. 43)

Thus in existential commitment, when Scripture is used, whatever the person believes is what God wants of him, total commitment to this is what counts. It is further expected that the church will become a nurturing center where each member helps the other to achieve this goal. This is in spite of the fact that some may have set goals which have little to do with the real purpose of the church.

In this ideal, several truths concerning salvation are equally neglected. For one, the idea contains nothing of the truth that Jesus Christ is the author and finisher of the Christian faith. The believer in the above scenario works out his faith as if it were left up to him. Also, the fact that the Spirit of God dwells in the believer, changing him from within, often in contradiction to his desires, has no place in this system. The fact that salvation speaks of God taking hold of man, electing and calling him to a purpose decided upon before the foundation of the world, has no place in the above scheme. This also suggests that the church, which is suppose to be the pillar and ground of truth and the transmitter of the truths and values by which others may be saved, becomes primarily called to the task of leading the world to live responsibly and authentically. Social and personal wholeness is the gospel salvation.

If this seems to be a misrepresentation of the subjective reinterpretations of Scripture, listen to what Howard Clinbell suggests is the mission of the church in his book which is used in Southern Baptist seminaries for courses on counseling:

The church’s mission in the eighties and nineties is to be an abundant

life center, a place for liberating, nurturing, and empowering life in

all its fullness, in individuals, in intimate relationships, and in society

and its institutions. The goal of ministry...is the fullest possible

liberation of person in their total relational and societal contexts.

The essence of liberation in the Hebrew Christian context, is

the freedom to become all that one has the possibility of

becoming. (p.28)

This is nothing but a restatement of Schleiermarcher’s idea that regeneration is “by participating in the corporate life of the contemporary Church rather than by merely believing in Christ’s death and resurrection in history” (Hoffecker, Evangelical Dictionary)

In this case, salvation for society will come through the church becoming the place where individuals are developed toward “wholeness.”

The bottom line of all this psychological rhetoric is the church becomes a social change agent to better the welfare of society at large as man moves toward actualization in all aspects of his world: the political systems, organizations, groups, friendships, families and individuals. My question is direct, what has this to do with the command of Christ that the church go forth proclaiming Him and teaching His commands and truth? While the proponents of the above view will say that it is simply carrying out the commands of loving one's neighbor and learning to live unselfishly, this commitment actually seems to be more selfish because it is a commitment to help one another while they help the individual reach his desired potential. It is like a buddy system in which we all give a little and take a little in order to reach our desired goals. This is why a church can justify spending millions of dollars on building gymnasiums, focus on aerobic classes, singles fellowships, Halloween parties, and the like, while millions around the world are perishing in their sin. is this truly unselfish commitment? Moreover, the commitment in most cases is not to Jesus Christ but to the church program, the building program, the local assembly’s vision of the future. I can only ponder if self-actualization is the reason that Jesus went to the cross. I equally question how this type of actualization can occur when there is no birth by the Spirit and power of God. I do not doubt that a fellowship can nurture a person into authentic existence. However, when it does, the person becomes nothing but a two-fold child of hell. More alarming, thousands are attending religious services while their sin problem is never dealt with. Nor is it likely that it will be dealt with because these goats are “faithful” to the ministry of the church, e.g., its programs and vision.

The results are tragic. The glitter and showmanship of professional clergy who move herds of people toward their visions and goals. Small group discussion, which often is nothing more than value clarification sessions, becomes a tool for motivating people toward existential goals. Ministry to sinners, when it would be better to leave them in their wrath, becomes the goal of benevolent endeavors. Why has it been forgotten by the church that often a person has to reap the tragic consequences of his sinful lifestyle before he will turn to God? Instead, well-meaning saints are guided into stepping in and comforting the sinner before he will cry out to God. It is as if Christians think they can draw people into loving and accepting God by their benevolent acts. Why not let the Spirit of God do the drawing? Why not trust Scripture to speak its truth clearly rather than relying on the weakness of our own testimony? This is the reason that the church becomes filled with people who are well on the way to becoming authentic and having their carnal desires met, but who are equally on the road to hell.

I can only think of a couple whom I share the gospel truth with several years ago. When I met them out on visitation, I found out they had become involved in the Mormon church. What I discovered was that this church, through helping them in a difficult time, had sort of grabbed them up into their fellowship. The church had been so kind and loving to them they thought it must be from God. Fortunately, the couple had been brought up in a Christian background and knew parts of God’s Word. When they began to compare what they were hearing and what they had learned from Scripture, they thought something was wrong. It was at this point that I was asked the question about the Mormon faith and was subsequently able to lead them back into the truth of Jesus Christ. The point of this being, it is easy for lost and confused individuals to join into those who are showing kindness in a time of need. Just as the Mormons could have swallowed this couple up in their falsehoods, so the Christian church can swallow up the lost into its midst by its kindness and love. The point is, if Jesus Christ does not draw them, if they have not responded to the truth, if they are still on the road to hell, it matters little if their needs have been abundantly take care of. The church has done nothing to help them.

This is the direction which this subjective approach to Scripture is taking the church. No doubt it is time for God’s people to return to an objective approach to Scripture in all matters. The task will be difficult, but the results will be glorious. If some say that I am too naive in my call, that there will always be major differences in doctrine, thus the reason for denominationalism, I suggest that we be honest with ourselves. Be honest about the prejudices and assumptions that are applied to Scripture. Be honest about the standard that is being used to judge Scripture. In do so, it might be seen that the interpretations are not significantly different. I believe Jesus when He said the Spirit would lead His followers into truth. You can apply this only to the disciples if you want, but the same Spirit is at work today as it was when they penned the Scriptures. At this point, however, it seems the Spirit is leading into theological diversity if all who claim His directions are accepted. This is contrary to God’s basic nature. The truth is that the fault lies with man and his approach to Scripture. Let man realize his folly and become subjected to God’s Word.

The question which faces every believer and preacher is what approach is he going to use in Bible study. Will he use the Bible authoritatively by submitting to all of its truths, or does he subject the Bible to his ideas, wishes, opinions and the like? Equally, will the local assembly be submitted to the Head of the Church, or will the ruling party continue to dominate? Will man look to Jesus Christ as Savior and the King to come, or will Jesus be just an example to reveal what it means to be human? Will the church be filled with the desire and zeal to spread the gospel world-wide, or will the church use the gospel to help members reach their potential? Will the emphasis continue to be on ”gathering” goats into the congregation of God to achieve carnal goals (which incidentally, no place in the Scriptures can it be found where God commands His people to gather the heathen into the congregation. On the contrary, He always tells His people to go and be a witness to Him. The lost will join the Body when and if they are baptized into the Body by the Spirit of God through regeneration. At this point, the church will not even have to motivate or persuade them to be there, they will come!), or will the emphasis be upon the purity and holiness which ought to characterize the church in its approach to God. The way a person answers these questions will determine what type of approach he is taking to Scripture.

Let me further add, I have no doubt that the goals of making this world a better place while helping people reach their potential is a worthy one. I do, however, reject the use of the gospel of Jesus Christ to achieve this goal, via its existential reinterpretation. I also reject all efforts to take the historical truths of Jesus and His work and make them more meaningful by reinterpreting them to meet some concern man has for his fleshly survival. It is no wonder that a majority of preaching today has little effect upon the hearers. In many ways, the social gospel is what has become primary. In the current controversy, however, proponents of a subjective view of Scripture have found philosophical and rational ways to support this social agenda. In the end, it appears that Satan has taken God’s Word to achieve his purposes, rather than the Word being used for what God intended. Is the Bible to be used to show man that he can live up to his worldly potential? Does its values change as man redefines what it means to be man? No doubt, it is this type of approach which encourages a pastor to tell me that it was more important for my son to be at his church’s preschool farewell than to attend the revival services in my own church. The reason given for this logic, my sons' values are not mine. My son would get more out of the program than he would the revival services. I do not argue with the truth of the statement. However, if this is good logic, I suppose I am to let my son stay home and watch cartoons on Sunday morning because he values staying there over church. Equally, I suppose I am to let my son have immoral sexual relations when he values it and I do not. I know that my values are different on many occasions from my sons’. However, I do pray to God that somehow he will recognize the importance of these values over worldly ones. I desire for him to choose revival meetings over playing in an important and crucial football game if such an occasion should arise. If my son will not do what I request of him, how do you think he will listen to God and do what he requests when his values are different than God’s commands? Perhaps this is why the church is in such a mess. Values are defined as man goes along. The foolishness of this position is obvious.

Previous Home Next Table of Contents