It’s popular in some Christian circles these days to downplay the importance of studying theology in favor of focusing purely on Jesus, as if a pursuit of greater theological understanding stands in opposition to a simple relationship with Christ. Pursuit of greater theological understanding is seen as an empty intellectual exercise which undermines a personal “experience” with Jesus.

This is not a new development. In 1993, when asked about the trend to minimize theology in favor of “just Jesus”, Dr. R.C. Sproul gave this answer:

“My first question to people [who believe that] is, ‘Who is Jesus?’ As soon as you start to answer that question, you are into theology. The person who says to me, ‘I’m not interested in theology’ doesn’t realize that what he’s saying is that he’s not interested in God. Because if we have any understanding whatsoever of the character of God, that’s theology. ...to be against theology...is a denial of our own humanity, because we can’t even relate to God unless we know something about Him.” (source: Interview from 1993 on The White Horse Inn)

The great danger here is in reducing Jesus to a private experience to the exclusion of seeing him as an objective, historical truth. To the extent that Christians see Jesus through personal insights gained from private revelation (either from their own minds or through the minds of an extra-biblical prophet), they minimize the historical and objective reality of the Jesus of Scripture and they send the message that the “true Jesus” is anything we need him to be. Said another way, if all of us claim to know the “true Jesus” but we come to widely different conclusions about the meaning of his earthly ministry, some (or perhaps all) of us have missed the point.

Hebrews 1:1-3 says, “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.” The apostle John describes Jesus as the pre-existent Word (John 1:1) and the “Word made flesh” (John 1:14). Given this, we need to listen to what Jesus says about himself and what the Word says about him. We should not endeavor to minimize the importance of theology because in so doing, we reduce Jesus to a “feeling” or a self-help tool, rather than seeing him as the lamb of God who takes away our sin (John 1:29), through whom we have reconciliation to the Father (2 Corinthians 5:11-21).

Administrator - 28 January 2008 08:17 AM

The great danger here is in reducing Jesus to a private experience to the exclusion of seeing him as an objective, historical truth. To the extent that Christians see Jesus through personal insights gained from private revelation (either from their own minds or through the minds of an extra-biblical prophet), they minimize the historical and objective reality of the Jesus of Scripture and they send the message that the “true Jesus” is anything we need him to be. Said another way, if all of us claim to know the “true Jesus” but we come to widely different conclusions about the meaning of his earthly ministry, some (or perhaps all) of us have missed the point.

Why is this a great danger?  Why is correct theology important?

Are we judged according to our beliefs? If we believe incorrectly, is there a danger that we will cause someone, perhaps many someone’s, including ourselves, to be lost?

Hi Glenn,

I don’t think it is so much a matter of being judged according to our ability to construct a perfect theological system, it is a matter of being faithful to what Jesus has asked us to do. If we profess to be his followers, we will seek to know as much as we can about him and be as faithful as possible to his message. For example, I would not be showing genuine love and devotion to my wife if I treated her as I would treat a co-worker, even if I addressed her by the correct name. It is the same with Jesus. If we profess a belief in Jesus but our picture of him is vastly different than what the Bible reveals, we must ask ourselves whether we’re really professing belief in the Jesus of the Bible. Another example that comes to mind are the teachers of the so-called “prosperity gospel” who make Jesus the answer for all of life’s problems, from not having enough money to not having our “best life now”. These teachers are not proclaiming a Jesus who can save us from our sin so much as a Jesus who can optimize and smooth over all of life’s problems. Is this really the Jesus of the Bible? Is this the Jesus who said that belief in him would come at a high cost (Matthew 16:24-25, John 15:18-16:4)?

Jesus and the apostles taught that there would be deceivers who would attempt to obscure the reality of his life and teachings. Writing to the Corinthians, the apostle Paul said, “But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.” (2 Corinthians 11:3-4 ESV) And later, referring to the “false apostles” who sought to use Jesus’ name to further their own objectives, he says, “And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.” (2 Corinthians 11:14-15 ESV). And we’re all familiar with what Jesus said about “false christs and false prophets” in Matthew 24:24.

The bottom line is that many people claim the name of Jesus as a way of blessing what they are doing, yet they effectively deny him in their actions by promoting a christ who is foreign to the words of Scripture. Because we love Jesus, we should seek to put these many claims to the test and be prepared to invest the time and energy to do so, just as we would with any human relationship we care about.

Greg

And I am quick to add that I’ve seen people inside and outside of the Adventist church who claim Jesus is blessing their own plans to the exclusion of others. Both sides must come to grips with the fact that they do not own Jesus, and that Jesus knows his sheep better than we do.

Also, there’s a disturbing trend to minimize the importance of good theology because it is against the idea of knowing Jesus personally. The irony is that we all think we know Jesus personally but our theology is widely divergent, even contradictory. Maybe we would get somewhere if we sat down and tried to reconcile our theological differences instead of merely assuming others don’t know the real Jesus because they haven’t had the same inner experience we have.

Complicating matters is that there are different starting points for knowing the true Jesus. Do we start with our inner experiences or feelings? Do we start with Scripture? Do we start with Ellen White? Depending on where we start, our conclusions about who Jesus is will be all over the map.

Greg

Greg,

This is a great topic. There is so much I want to say about this as I get time. So often in professing Christian circles, Jesus is basicly reduced to a good feeling rather than One who taught objective truth.

Stan

Greg - 28 January 2008 03:31 PM

It is the same with Jesus. If we profess a belief in Jesus but our picture of him is vastly different than what the Bible reveals, we must ask ourselves whether we’re really professing belief in the Jesus of the Bible…

The bottom line is that many people claim the name of Jesus as a way of blessing what they are doing, yet they effectively deny him in their actions by promoting a christ who is foreign to the words of Scripture. Because we love Jesus, we should seek to put these many claims to the test and be prepared to invest the time and energy to do so, just as we would with any human relationship we care about.

Greg

Yes, I think the point is that what we think of Jesus or what our picture of Him is, is important because of what that knowledge or picture causes us to do, or not do.

Knowing Jesus, knowing God and having a proper view of him has a lot to do with what God condemned in the Old Testament times, idolatry, making God in our image. Idolatry was not something people did because of their ignorance, but by rejecting God’s revealed will which was made clearly to them in the second commandment, namely that making visual representations of himself is sinful.

The same is true regarding modern representations of God and has nothing to do with our intellectual capacity or ability to understand God, but with an attitude of heart which desires to follow God in his self-revelation, knowing him more and more. It has to do with love, and with the desire to know better the person we love.

Gabriel

As an example of how Jesus is being brought down to the realm of new age mysticism, check out this announcement of a conference at Robert Schuller’s Crystal Cathedral:

Rethink Conference: Crystal Cathedral, California

January 17, 2008

Robert Schuller once said: “Standing before a crowd of devout Muslims with the Grand Mufti, I know that we’re all doing God’s work together. Standing on the edge of a new millennium, we’re laboring hand in hand to repair the breach.” He made that statement in his 2001 biography, My Journey (p. 501), and today he has taken a giant step forward in seeing his dream of an all all-inclusive spiritual body come true. What’s more, Christian leaders and organizations are helping to bring it to pass.

Today, the Rethink Conference at Schuller’s Crystal Cathedral began. This three day event is hosted by Schuller and popular emerging futurist Erwin McManus.

In addition to McManus, the Rethink Conference has several other Christian leaders speaking: Gary Smalley, Henry Cloud, Chuck Colson, and Kay Warren, to name a few. While the speaker list includes several names outside the Christian camp (Larry King, George Bush Sr., Rupert Murdoch, etc.), a majority of the speakers, both Christian and non-Christian, are proponents of mystical spirituality. The reason this is important to know is because Schuller’s vision of an all-inclusive global religious body cannot happen without mysticism. It is in fact the vehicle through which Schuller’s dream will occur. He discloses a little more of this vision in his book:

I met once more with the Grand Mufti (a Muslim), truly one of the great Christ-honoring leaders of faith. ... I’m dreaming a bold impossible dream: that positive-thinking believers in God will rise above the illusions that our sectarian religions have imposed on the world, and that leaders of the major faiths will rise above doctrinal idiosyncrasies, choosing not to focus on disagreements, but rather to transcend divisive dogmas to work together to bring peace and prosperity and hope to the world. (p. 502).

In order for this “bold impossible dream” to occur, change agents such as Schuller and McManus realize that Christianity needs to be redefined. Thus, the term rethink. McManus has believed this for some time. In an interview, he stated:

My goal is to destroy Christianity as a world religion and be a recatalyst for the movement of Jesus Christ.... Some people are upset with me because it sounds like I’m anti-Christian. I think they might be right!(1)

It’s easier to understand what McManus means by this by reading this next statement from him:

The Barbarian Way was, in some sense, trying to create a volatile fuel to get people to step out and act. It’s pretty hard to get a whole group of people moving together as individuals who are stepping into a more mystical, faith-oriented, dynamic kind of experience with Christ. So, I think was my attempt to say, “Look, underneath what looks like invention, innovation and creativity is really a core mysticism that hears from God, and what is fueling this is something really ancient.” That’s what was really the core of The Barbarian Way. (from Relevant magazine)

To put this in plain terms, there is a three step process in making this new vision become a reality. 

First, reeducation: convince Christians that the Christianity of today has to be thrown out and replaced by a whole new way of thinking. 

Second, get these new thinking Christians to incorporate mysticism into their lives and hear the voice of a new kind of God, not one that is described in the Bible but one that is found through altered states of consciousness. McManus put it this way: “I build my life not on the Word of God, but the voice of God. The Scriptures are to me the instrument that God has placed in history for me to learn the voice of God.” (2)

The voice of this mystical god will direct people to the final step of the process, and that will be to bring about a supposed kingdom of God where all will be one, and where man finally realizes his own divinity. Unfortunately, it will be a kingdom built, not on the truth of the Word of God, thus not on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The rethinking of Christianity is taking place right now before our very eyes. The mystical practices are now being implemented by countless people around the world, including huge numbers of professing Christians through the spiritual formation movement. It is just a matter of time before this new age dream will take effect, and a great spiritual delusion will overtake the masses.

Roger Oakland, author of Faith Undone (the hard-hitting expose on the emerging church), spent this morning at the Crystal Cathedral listening to speakers share their hopes for the rethinking of Christianity. Oakland heard one popular evangelical speaker say that the emerging church is energizing Christianity.

What that evangelical leader may not realize is that this energizing is happening through mystical practices. One person who does understand this concept is Robert Schuller. Ray Yungen explains:

[W]hat many might not know about Schuller is his New Thought proclivities. Interspiritual scholar Marcus Bach once related the following incident that took place at a Unity church in Hawaii in which Bach was speaking:

Dr. Schuller attended the first of three services, this one at 7:30 am. When we shook hands at the door, he tarried to assure me how much Unity principles meant to him and how helpful they had been to him in his work. (The Unity Way, p. 267)

What could some of these Unity principles be? Bach explains:
Hinduism’s emphasis on meditation fit[s] well into Unity’s patterns for enlightenment.(Ibid, p. 104)

This is one of the major principles that Schuller was making reference to. In his own book, Prayer: My Soul’s Adventure with God, he says:

Move into mighty moods of meditation. Draw energy from centers of sacred solitude, serenity, and silence.... Find yourself coming alive in the garden of prayer called meditation.... Yes, the “New Agers” have grabbed hold of meditation.... Hey, Christian! Hear me! Let’s not give up the glorious, God-given gift of meditation by turning it over to those outside our faith. (pp. 141, 151)

The point that Schuller misses is that meditation is what makes a person a New Ager! This perspective is something to consider in light of the quarter million pastors who have trained and been mentored under Schuller at his Leadership Institute. (For Many Shall Come in My Name, ch. 3)

The line up at Rethink further confirms that Schuller and McManus see mysticism as playing a vital role in the rethinking and energizing of Christianity. Many of the speakers share McManus’ and Schuller’s propensity on mysticism’s role in transforming the world.

Equally disturbing is knowing that CCN (Church Communication Network) sponsors and is helping to broadcast the Rethink Conference. CCN represents many of today’s Christian leaders from Rick Warren, to James Dobson, to Joni Eareckson Tada, to Max Lucado and many many others. 

What this means is that mainstream Christianity is going mystical, just as Alice Bailey, the woman who coined the term New Age, predicted so very many years ago. Yungen ties this all together: 

“Bailey eagerly foretold of what she termed ‘the regeneration of the churches’ (Problems of Humanity, p. 152).

Her rationale for this was obvious:

The Christian church in its many branches can serve as a St. John the Baptist, as a voice crying in the wilderness, and as a nucleus through which world illumination may be accomplished. (The Externalization of the Hierarchy, p. 510)

“In other words, instead of opposing Christianity, the occult would capture and blend itself with Christianity and then use it as its primary vehicle for spreading and instilling New Age consciousness! The various churches would still have their outer trappings of Christianity and still use much of the same lingo. If asked certain questions about traditional Christian doctrine, the same answers would be given. But it would all be on the outside; on the inside a contemplative spirituality would be drawing in those open to it. “In wide segments of Christendom this has indeed already occurred.... Thomas Keating alone taught 31,000 people mystical prayer in one year. People are responding to this in large numbers because it has the external appearance of Christianity but in truth, is the diametric opposite---what a skillful spiritual delusion!”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The above is a good example of what happens when good theology is ignored, and everyone just comes together to just get along.

Thanks to Bobh, for sending this along to me.

Stan

John Piper is helpful here.

“The point is that if our joy is going to reflect the glory of God, then it must flow from true knowledge of how God is glorious. If we are going to enjoy God duly, we must know him truly. How can our joy reflect the worth of God if it is not rooted in truth about God?”

“Jesus is honored by our knowing and treasuring him for who he really is.

He is a real person. A fact. A fixed, unchanging reality in the universe, independent of our feelings. Our feelings about him do not make him what he is. Our feelings about him reflect the value of what we think he has. And if our knowledge of him is wrong, to that degree our enjoyment of him will be no honor to the real Jesus. Our joy displays his glory when it’s a reflex of seeing him for who he really is.”

(The Supremacy of Christ and Joy in a Postmodern World)

michael - 09 February 2008 04:02 PM

John Piper is helpful here.

“The point is that if our joy is going to reflect the glory of God, then it must flow from true knowledge of how God is glorious. If we are going to enjoy God duly, we must know him truly. How can our joy reflect the worth of God if it is not rooted in truth about God?”

“Jesus is honored by our knowing and treasuring him for who he really is.

He is a real person. A fact. A fixed, unchanging reality in the universe, independent of our feelings. Our feelings about him do not make him what he is. Our feelings about him reflect the value of what we think he has. And if our knowledge of him is wrong, to that degree our enjoyment of him will be no honor to the real Jesus. Our joy displays his glory when it’s a reflex of seeing him for who he really is.”

(The Supremacy of Christ and Joy in a Postmodern World)

Hi Michael,

I notice that this is your first post on 4TG, and what a magnificent post it is. A warm welcome to 4TG!  John Piper always has a great way of speaking the truth. We look forward to your contributions on this site.

Stan

Michael, thanks for posting that quote from John Piper. I couldn’t agree with Piper more. If we are to have true and enduring fellowship with Jesus, we must have a picture of him that is rooted in reality. It is easy to make a caricature of Jesus that we like and who blesses us (often to the exclusion of others), but unless the biblical Jesus is the object of our worship, we may be worshiping a different Jesus or perhaps even worshiping ourselves.

I recall an extended discussion I had with some individuals who subscribe to the “moral influence theory”. They believed Jesus’ death on the cross was not about substitutionary atonement and propitiation of God’s wrath, but rather a pure demonstration of Jesus’ love. They said Jesus didn’t need to die for our sins (because humans are merely “sick” and not “dead” in sin), but that he needed to demonstrate how much he cared for us so we would turn from our sin and love as he does. They essentially believed that Jesus has no “rough edges"—he’s simply all loving all the time and never has a harsh word or a stern rebuke for anybody. After discussing our beliefs for awhile, it became obvious that we had radically different ideas about who Jesus was and what his mission on earth was about.

I remember something my former pastor said in a sermon once: “The most important thing about you is what comes into your mind when you think about God.” If our picture of God is not grounded in biblical truth, we’ll end up worshiping something we’ve created rather than the God who saw fit to reveal himself in his Word and through his Son. There are literally thousands of ways to co-opt Christianity and turn it into a self-centered religious exercise.

Michael, thanks again for joining us, and I look forward to hearing more from you.

Greg

Greg, my thoughts as I read this section of your post:

… They believed Jesus’ death on the cross was not about substitutionary atonement and propitiation of God’s wrath, but rather a pure demonstration of Jesus’ love.

“but rather a pure demonstration...” Pardon me!  How could our Creator be obligated to prove anything?  What is it that He must demonstrate!?!?  Other than not being scriptural, this line of thinking smacks of our human propensity to be self-serving. As if they are saying: “Oh, we’re not so bad that we actually need a sinless Christ to be our substitute and pay the penalty that we surely, and fully deserve!”

Isaiah53:6
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

They said Jesus didn’t need to die for our sins (because humans are merely “sick” and not “dead” in sin), but that he needed to demonstrate how much he cared for us so we would turn from our sin and love as he does.

More self-serving, feel-good pablum!  Let’s soften our need for Christ by not being “spiritually dead” or “eternally lost”, again, we’re not so bad, we’re just sick and we have the power to heal ourselves as Christ demonstrated in His love…

Colossians 2:13 13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins,

Greg said: “They essentially believed that Jesus has no “rough edges"—he’s simply all loving all the time and never has a harsh word or a stern rebuke for anybody.”

Greg, I couldn’t agree with you more in how, without the foundation of scripture, we humans will soften the message and remove the absolutes found in the Truth of Christ.  We try to turn the black and white of the Gospel into shades of gray. This is done for earthly comfort and results in eternal loss!

I pray that these people will find the Christ of the Bible!

Liberal theology - Jesus not essential – Purpose Driven, Emergent and a host of denominations who spout opinions, not scripture. Their theory is that God is so loving that belief in Christ is not crucial, ultimately everyone will be saved.

Legalistic theology - Jesus not sufficient – SDAs are a prime example (to paraphrase a SDA pastor from another forum ‘Jesus is great, but there’s so much more’) but certainly not the only ones. Their theory is that God is judgmental and exacting and belief in Christ is not enough, the believer must appease the angry God through perfect obedience, ultimately none can be saved.

Strangely, if one could be saved through perfect obedience they end up with the liberal position, Jesus is not essential.

Both of these positions deny the biblical truth that mankind is DEAD in sin and incapable of resurrecting himself. Both assume that man has ‘a spark of goodness’ and that by his own volition may chose salvation, but on his terms, not God’s.

Reformation theology - Jesus, absolutely essential and 100% sufficient – the very few (or so it seems). This pathetic few have the temerity to consider that the Sovereign God’s word is inerrant and means exactly what it says – by God’s grace He chooses whom He will save, through faith alone in Christ alone.

There are those who have the audacity to question, judge actually, the right of God to choose whom He would save, as if God could be wrong?

God’s attributes:

Foreknowledge - knowledge of something before it exists or happens; prescience

Omniscient - having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.

Atemporality - not bound by time

Aseity - existence originating from and having no source other than itself

Immutability - not mutable; unchangeable; changeless

Omnipotent - One having unlimited power or authority

His will, His plan, His choice, His terms, His glory. 

John Douglas

John,

A powerful and well written post indeed. I couldn’t agree with you more!

May I take liberties with your Reformation theology statement?  Here’s your original:

Reformation theology - Jesus, absolutely essential and 100% sufficient – the very few (or so it seems). This pathetic few have the temerity to consider that the Sovereign God’s word is inerrant and means exactly what it says – by God’s grace He chooses whom He will save, through faith alone in Christ alone.

Here’s my revised/extended version:

Reformation theology - Jesus, absolutely essential and 100% sufficient!  For those, who have been chosen by the Sovereign God, and have the temerity to consider that this same Sovereign God’s word is inerrant, and means exactly what it says. And that by His infinite grace, it is He alone who elects whom He will save, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Whether the elect are great or small in number, it has all been decided by His will, exclusively for His pleasure, and His glory!  Amen…

Please consider this post as an extension on your theme, and nothing else...!

Dan…

Dan Hagan - 11 February 2008 09:21 AM

John,

A powerful and well written post indeed. I couldn’t agree with you more!

May I take liberties with your Reformation theology statement?  Here’s your original:

Reformation theology - Jesus, absolutely essential and 100% sufficient – the very few (or so it seems). This pathetic few have the temerity to consider that the Sovereign God’s word is inerrant and means exactly what it says – by God’s grace He chooses whom He will save, through faith alone in Christ alone.

Here’s my revised/extended version:

Reformation theology - Jesus, absolutely essential and 100% sufficient!  For those, who have been chosen by the Sovereign God, and have the temerity to consider that this same Sovereign God’s word is inerrant, and means exactly what it says. And that by His infinite grace, it is He alone who elects whom He will save, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Whether the elect are great or small in number, it has all been decided by His will, exclusively for His pleasure, and His glory!  Amen…

Please consider this post as an extension on your theme, and nothing else...!

Dan…

Thanks Dan, well said and a deserved improvement! 

I was being a tad sarcastic in the use of the term ‘pathetic’. I had in mind those who question the inerrancy of God’s word and those who steadfastly repudiate God’s sovereign will to choose whom he would save. I get the impression that they consider those who put all their trust in God for salvation as mentally impaired, as if sinful man’s involvement in his own salvation somehow improved the ‘odds’. I must be missing something as I just don’t get it.

John Douglas