Legalism, Cheap Peace or God-honoring Accountability?

Posted on January 14, 2008

This time of year Christians often redouble their spiritual efforts in resolve to be more holy. Some will think about or even venture to join an accountability group. Originally appearing in the Journal of Biblical Counseling, this article seeks to correct misguided approaches to accountability, deconstructing legalism and cheap peace, while advocating a gospel-centered, God-honoring approach to accountable relationships. An excerpt:

Put ten bucks in the jar to keep from sinning.

When I recall some of the popular discipleship disciplines I advocated in college, I shudder. Did I really think that they were biblical or even helpful? When one of my disciples caved into a particular sin he was “being held accountable for,” he had to put ten bucks in the jar. Sounds awfully close to an indulgence doesn’t it? Yet, in
our aim to promote “holiness,” ten bucks was the penalty for pandering to sin. We thought this approach to accountability was especially good for fighting sexual sin. If one of the guys I discipled had a particularly lustful week, (viewing inappropriate TV, reading pornographic material, or masturbating), he had to “pay the price.”

When we met for our weekly accountability meeting, I would ask a range of questions designed to promote accountability, but as I recall, we only assigned sexual sins the steep penalty of ten dollars. “Other sins” were considered less grievous. Sometimes the accumulated cash was put in the offering, other times it was used to celebrate “not sinning” over dinner. Somehow, this practice was supposed to motivate holy living, but instead, it fostered a legalism that undercut a more biblical approach to fighting sin.

Thank God for Evolution

Posted on January 14, 2008

A friend recently called my attention to Michael Dowd, an evangelist of “evolution theology.” Dowd is a former preacher who left pastoral ministry to spread the gospel of evolution theology. His primary point is fine enough, marriage and science are not irreconcilable. In fact his scientific research and clear stance on the old age of the earth are refreshing. Where did the Bible ever say just how old the earth is or that such a question is important or essential to faith?

Dowd takes a more positive, all-embracing stance claiming that “the marriage of religion and science can profoundly improve your life and the world.” There is much in science that can and should be integrated with theology. However, Dowd goes beyond the integration of science and scripture to the reinterpretation of scripture from the viewpoint of evolution.

In his book, Thank God for Evolution, (free pdf of book) Dowd writes:

I cannot agree that “Jesus as God’s way, truth, and life” means that only those Christians who believe certain things about Jesus or the Bible get to go to a special otherworldly place called heaven when they die. I used to believe that, but I don’t anymore. In hindsight, I see that my old belief cheapened, belittled, and impoverished the universal glory of the Gospel. What Jesus’ life and ministry were actually about is far larger and more meaningful, and offers more this-world relevance, than my old clannish, contracted “we win, you lose” understanding. More, one need not be a Christian, nor ever have read the Bible, in order to walk what is, effectively, the same path we Christians aspire to—the same “one way”to a realized, redemptive life of fulfillment and service in this world, here and now, while simultaneously blessing future generations.

To be sure, Jesus did not teach a “we win, you lose” mentality. Instead, he taught us to love God and neighbor, rendered possible not just through his example, but through receiving new hearts to love by faith in his sacrifice for our failure to love God and neighbor. An essential claim of Christ is that the man and the world are broken because of sin, rebellion against God. Jesus seeks to redeem humanity and the world through his death and world-renewing return. However, he does not minimize his own sacrifice or teachings as optional. They are essential and joy-giving to those who embrace him.

The problem with Dowd is that he applies an evolutionary hermeneutic to Jesus’ teachings. Dowd claims that we must not interpret Jesus words as he intended them (a great disrespect and distortion to any teacher/author), but with a scientific and evolutionary lens: “If my interpretation of Jesus as “the way, the truth, and he life” of God is the same as that of peoples living hundreds or thousands of years ago, I miss the magnitude and magnificence of what God has publicly revealed through science and cultural evolution in the intervening centuries.”

If I were to apply the same hermeneutic to Dowd and say that what he really meant was that “evolutionary theology” affirms the historic claims of the Church and of Scripture, that salvation is by faith alone through Christ alone, and that evolution is only tenable if it affirms God as Creator and maker of man in his unique image, Dowd would be terribly upset. But I do not disrespect him in that way. Instead, I honor his intention and present his doctrine as he states it. Dowd could at least do the same for Jesus.