I have moved...

to http://ihovet.wordpress.com

God's Wrath #1

"Some might find it surprising that I would teach a young boy about God's wrath toward sin. But I find it surprising that any loving person would withhold this truth from another person they love. Because only when we understand God's wrath toward sin can we realize that we need to be saved from it. Only when we hear the bad news that we're deserving of judgement can we appreciate the good news that God, through His Son, has provided salvation and full, continuing forgiveness for our sins. Only those who are aware of God's wrath are amazed at God's grace."

-- C.J. Mahaney Living the Cross Centered Life

Living in Community #1

Here are some things we are observing and learning so far.  It has been about 10 days, so we reocognize that we are still in the Honeymoon phase.

To start, the healthiest thing we have done is to talk very specifically about our paradigm as we move in together.  Here is a summary:

• Both families have prayed about this possibility and met two times before move-in day.
• Even though the Hovet's were moving in with a family that owned the home, we have agreed that both parties are equal in rights for this living arrangement
• This home we are living in is being viewed as a mission house.  Both families and each individual has a mission from God in Hillsboro and this house simply is God's provision for that mission.  In other words, living in this house isn't the priority, but the mission is.  (I find this to be an important distinction for future experiments--in America we tend to identify the house as the end of mission rather than the means of mission)
• We have identified strict private areas and common areas.  This gives safety and room for individual family units to exist and grow.
• We don't require common meals every day.  Again, this allows for individual family's to exist and grow.

Observations:

• I am more aware of my selfishness and pride.  For instance, I have long prided myself on rising early--but living in community has shown me that I am not as consistent as I once was--and I can't hide that fact from others
• I am loving the opportunity for a broader daily conversation
• This would be very hard if we weren't living with mature believers
• We have had opportunity already to come to the cross as a family, in front of our house family.  It is humiliating (but as a friend always tells me--"Humiliation leads to humility"

More to come!

The Atonement Conversation Part 2

Here are my questions to my friend and his answers (see here for part one of this conversation).  In summary, he is arguing for a primary view of Atonement that is based on Christus Victor, while I am retaining penal substitionary atonement (as primary).  Also, at the end of his answers is my most current response to him:

1. Question:
   Describe how forgiveness a part from sacrifice is represented in the Old Testament. Explain the scapegoat and the goat that was slain for the sins of the people (Lev 16) 
   Answer:
   I cannot refute the representation of the scapegoat and its clear parallel with the death of Jesus. I know that the penalty of sin is death, and so I see the need for Jesus to die in our place. The difference can best be described with a very Lion, Which and the Wardrobe example. Aslan did not die to fulfill a wrathful Gods wish or need for payment to HIM, but because payment was owed to the WITCH. I’ll get into that more later. As far as forgiveness, we see God forgive several times in the Old Testament without sacrifice, the most obvious being Nineveh. I could show many more, but only one example is needed because if God can do it once, He could do it whenever. So obviously, the slaying of the goat was not a necessity for forgiveness. Forgiveness is actually a subsequent action in Salvation. For example, the message Paul received when he first encountered Christ was that he was being sent to the Gentiles “to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may reiceve forgiveness of sins and place among those who are sanctified by faith in Christ.” (Acts 26.17-18) So it was through Paul that God was going to free Gentiles from “the god of this world” who had “blinded the minds of the unbelievers” (2 Cor 4.4) and thereby set them free from the power of Satan and bring them into the power of God. Because of this—and NOTE CLOSELY THE LOGICAL ORDER—they would bein a position to “receive forgiveness of sins” as well as a place among the community of God. Salvation clearly involves forgiveness, but this forgiveness is itself rooted in a person getting freed from Satan’s grip, and therefore freed from the controlling power of sin.
2. Question:
   Please explain this statement: "God is not a vengeful judge who simply cannot forgive without payment (a picture of God that is not consistent with the rest of the Bible)" -- How is that not consistent with scripture?  
   Answer:
   As far as the statements on Gods anger, I see that anger being towards sin as a power and effect in people’s lives. Not at the people, but at the sin. Much the way we preach that we should live. After all, our battle is not against flesh and blood, but this power that is over them. (This is another reason I love this view, it seems to unify Jesus’ life, and death, as well as how He asks me to live MY life.)
   
   I also see all of those verses on atonement, propitiation, and representative sacrifice being a representation to the enemy, not to God. For all of us who have “fallen short”, we are now rightful property of the enemy, and it is his job and right to “kill, steal, and destroy”. Enter Jesus who came to take our place in this payment…but He double-crossed the enemy and rose from the dead, thus making Satan a “laughingstock” (Col 2.14-15). It’s a beautiful thing…
3. Question:
   In light of Christus Victor, please explain why Jesus had to die in order to be victorious? How is your interpretation of Jesus' death foretold through the prophets?
   Answer:
   This is probably my favorite part of this view. The New Testament can really be seen in light of a war motif. There is this giant war going on. It’s a war between the Kingdom of this world (Satan), and the Kingdom of God (Jesus). Jesus believes that Satan is the “ruler of this world” (Jn 12.31), so when Jesus comes into “this world”, He is coming as a knight. As a fighter. He is invading hostile territory. And so everything that Jesus was about was centered on vanquishing this empire, taking back the world that Satan had seized and restoring its rightful viceroys—humans—to their position of guardians of the earth. This goes all the way back to the protoevangelion (Barbara Middlebrook anyone?) Gen 3.15. It’s apparently ALWAYS been about the fight. Taking back what belong to God. So, we can then see EVERYTHING that Jesus did is about that. Invading the kingdom of the world with the kingdom of God. But the beautiful thing is that the weapons of the Kingdom of God are completely different from the kingdom of the world. They fight with the sword, we fight with the cross. It’s the difference of the “power over” model, and the “coming under” model. It’s spelled out for us in John 13. What does Jesus do now that He has all the power in heaven and earth? He washes the disciples feet. So His whole life can be seen as attacking the kingdom of the enemy with the Kingdom of God, using the weapons of God: ie Love. So, when Jesus broke religious taboos by fellowshipping with tax collectors, prostitutes, and other sinners, and when he forsook religious traditions to lovingly heal and feed people on the Sabbath, in the light of Calvary we can understand him to be waging war against the powers and exposing the systemic evil that fuels religious legalism and oppression. He was conquering evil with love while giving his followers an example to follow. This is what the reign of God looks like, and therefore this is what confronting the destructive powers looks like. When He crossed racial lines, fellowshipping and speaking highly of Samaritans and Gentiles, and when we crossed social barriers—fellowshipping and touching lepers, for example—he was exposing and resisting the evil powers that fuel racism and social marginalization. He was conquering evil with love while giving his followers the example they are to follow. When he died in our place and offered Himself over to the enemy, He was showing us exactly what real love looks like. And His resurrection is the proof that love is truly greater then evil. The Kingdom of God is greater then the kingdom of the world. 
   
   So it is that Jesus’ life, death and resurrection cannot be separated from each other, not even theoretically. Whereas other models of the atonement tend to isolate the meaning of Jesus’ death from other aspects of His life, the Christus Victor model sees every aspect of Christ life—from his incarnation to his resurrection—as being most fundamentally about one thing: victoriously manifesting the loving Kingdom of God over and against the destructive, oppressive kingdom of Satan. 
   
   Every aspect of Jesus’ life is best understood along these lines. For example, even though he rightfully could have enjoyed every divine prerogative, He lays them down and is born as a man. Even though He owned all the cosmos, he instead has no place to lay his head. Even though he had all power of the universe, he washes feet. And when he could have called legions of angels, he allows himself to be crucified. Everything Jesus was about manifested Calvary-like love and should therefore be seen as acts of war against the destructive powers that seek to keep people from living in God’s love.
   
   Finally, I believe that there was a "secret" wisdom of God (Rom 16.25; 1 Cor 2.7; Eph 3.9-10; Col 1.26) whose plan was always to both represent what real love looks like on the Cross, and also make the payment for man's sin and choice to go his own way, but ultimately to defeat the Enemy through the resurrection. This was "to make everyone see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; so that through the church the wisdom of God in its rich variety might now be made known to the RULERS AND AUTHORITIES in the heavenly places. This was in accordance with the eternal purpose that he as carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Eph 3.9-11)
4. Question:
   If personal sin is diminished, how do you deal with human guilt? Are we not responsible for our sins against ourselves and others?
   Answer:
   We are all responsible for our own actions and guilt is an absolute reality. But if Jesus came to free us from the “power of sin” (Rom 6.7), why do we keep sinning? “Sin” must be something more then just my personal actions in this understanding. There must be something else that Jesus saved us from. I am still accountable for my own sins, but first and foremost, I had to be saved from this “power” that was over my life before I had Christ.

__________________________________________________________________

My response:

Dude,

YES YES YES!

Love it...but you cannot deny the Wrath of God that is directed at sinners. We see active examples of that in the Bible. We cannot remove ourselves from judgment, nor does your argument explain the great courtroom language Paul uses in Romans to explain how we are justified. He makes it clear that we are objects of wrath, that we are handed over to the wrath of God because of our sin.

Your model says so much good, but places (if teased out to its fully degree) responsibility for sin solely on Satan, and therefore represents God as unjust--why would he punish one sinner (Satan) but not all sinners? We chose sin, we choose sin; our ignorance (sins of omission) and indulgence cannot be denied. We aren't just in objective bondage (to the enemy) but are in subjective bondage (to the power of sin birthed within us).

I don't see a disconnect between all of Jesus' work and the penal substitutinary theory. His incarnation was necessary for him to be the perfect human ultimately paying the ultimate human price for sin. His life modeled his sacrificial love, teaching and modeling for us exactly what you stated, that love wins the day, but his ministry was always a lead up to his sacrificial death. His resurrection secured our own resurrection and paved the way for our sanctification (buried with Christ, raised with Christ).

Your Ransom Theory emphasis has some holes--how is it that anything was owed to Satan? The Old Testament sacrifices weren't presented to Satan, as to appease his wrath or to ransom the people of Israel back. The story of redemption is all about God winning the day (from day one). It seems to me that your theory, as presented to the whole of scriptural atonement, has some holes. I appreciate the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, but fail to see its biblical parallel (in your description). Also, one could argue that his death was necessary for the "deeper magic" and not as a payment to the Witch. He was satisfying the need for death (which wasn't warranted by her, but warranted by the unseen [in the Narnia series] Father). She might have even thought the payment went to her, but it didn't. One could further argue that if anything was owed to the witch, it could not have been death, for only perfection (the Creator and and sustainer of the Law or "deep magic") could demand such a payment. If Satan can demand death as a sinner, what keeps me from being able to demand death from another who has sinned against me? 

Your view gives Satan too much credit (he is a tempter more than a ruler [his lies might rule us, but he has no actual dominion--I am the prideful, doubting indulger]). The issue is with mankind who is created to glorify God, but raised (and IS raising) our collective middle finger at God--not only neglecting our primary duty of providing Him with glory and honor, but dishonoring and denying him. We choose sin and have entrenched ourselves in it, and we incur a growing debt to God, for he is the only creditor--either death (if debt not paid) or life (through the imputed righteousness of Christ [lamb without blemish] after our sins have been propitiated before God by him [lamb's blood on the mercy seat] expiated onto him [scapegoat]).

Some other thoughts:

I am reminded that it is faith that justifies, and so the faith of the people of Israel in the Atonement provided initiated forgiveness of sins. So, for Abraham, it was faith that justified, that be believed God. For the people of Nineveh, faith justified. Hmmm....interesting....

And, now our belief is to be in what God has done through Jesus Christ (Romans 1:16).

An Atonement Conversation

Please comment:

From a friend:

you [you refers to Isaac] said "We have replaced the outside, substitutionary atoning work of Jesus on the cross with a nicer God who doesn't need payment for sin, but who needs for us to be happier by becoming better at life."

i [sic] actually have rejected the Penal Substitutionary view on the Atonement and embraced the much older and classically held view called Christus Vitcor. in this view, God is not a vengeful judge who simply cannot forgive without payment (a picture of God that is not consistent with the rest of the Bible), but rather, a God that is so in love with his Creation that He dies in order to reconcile all things back to Himself from the enemy and his reign on the earth. salvation is about forgiveness, but it's much more about Creation being freed from Satan's grip (2 Tim. 2.26, Gal. 1.4, Gal. 4.3, Rom. 6.18, Gal. 5.1, Heb. 2.14-15, Col. 1.12-13) so, we see a God who is at war with the power of sin (sin, not as a matter of individual behavior, but as this quasi-autonomous power that holds people groups as well as individuals in bondage Rom. 3.9, 6.6-12, 7.7-20, 23, 25) and we are at the center of this. so He's a rescuer, a redeemer, a deliverer. not a judge who is angry at the world because of our sin, but a Creator who's angry at sin and it's effect on the world. this has really transformed my thinking of God, especially as a dad. i just couldn't understand why God had to kill his Son in order to forgive us, when he clearly forgave people throughout the Old Testament without any need for a sacrifice.

Isaac (me) replied:

I appreciate the Christus Victor theory as a part of the work of atonement. There is no doubt that Jesus' work accomplishes victory over sin in general and the ruler of this age.

But, I am convinced that we should, as John Stott says, "...strongly reject, therefore, every explanation of the death of Christ which does not have at its center the principle of '‘satisfaction through substitution,' indeed divine self-satisfaction through divine self-substitution."

Since you have obviously put a lot of thought into this, a few questions:

1) Describe how forgiveness a part from sacrifice is represented in the Old Testament. Explain the scapegoat and the goat that was slain for the sins of the people (Lev 16)

2) Please explain this statement: "God is not a vengeful judge who simply cannot forgive without payment (a picture of God that is not consistent with the rest of the Bible)" -- How is that not consistent with scripture? 

Here are some thoughts about God being angry with people:

Ex 22:22-24

22 “Do not take advantage of a widow or an orphan. 23 If you do and they cry out to me, I will certainly hear their cry. 24 My anger will be aroused, and I will kill you with the sword; your wives will become widows and your children fatherless."

--God seems to be angry here--vengeful against evil doers

2 Sam 6:7

7 "The Lord’s anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down and he died there beside the ark of God"

--God seems angry (actively angry and vengeful here)

Ps 7:11

11 God is a righteous judge, 

     a God who expresses his wrath every day. 

Eph 2:1-3

"As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful naturea and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath."

--I would like to point out that the subject of God's wrath in these verses is people--that he has vengeance against people who sin.

Eph 5:6

6" Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient."

--God's wrath is against people here--not just sin (as distinctly separate from people)

In regard to payment for sin:

Lev 17:11

11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.

And, in regard to Jesus being the "payment for sin":

**PROPITIATION**

John 11:51-52 

(Caiphus has just said that "it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish")

51 He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, 52 and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one.

1 John 2:2

2 He is the **atoning sacrifice** for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. 

Romans 3:23-26

23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented him as a **sacrifice of atonement**,through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. 

1 Cor 15:2-3

2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. 3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures

3) In light of Christus Victor, please explain why Jesus had to die in order to be victorious? How is your interpretation of Jesus' death foretold through the prophets?

4) If personal sin is diminished, how do you deal with human guilt? Are we not responsible for our sins against ourselves and others?

Care to add some thoughts to the conversation?

Christless Christianity #2

More from chapter 1--

Page 20

"We have not shown in recent decades that we have much stomach for this message that the apostle Paul called a 'stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense, 'folly to the Gentiles' (Rom. 9:33; 1 Cor. 1:23).  Far from clashing with the culture of consumerism, American religion appears not only at peace with our narcissism but gives it a spiritual legitimacy."

Obviously our culture is trying to do away with truth and discomfort.  Rather than lose weight, we demand larger seats on planes.  We use euphemisms galore and flock to the happiest place on earth to escape what we all know to be true--that we are sinful and can't change.  

Rather than allow the message of the cross to confront our deepest need (to be reconciled to God by God through God's justice, wrath, mercy and grace) we have, at best, cheapened the cross to be an entry point, an example, or a piece of fire insurance.  In my personal experience, we have called people to the truth of the cross, but haven't done a good job of teaching the full ramifications of salvation through faith and by grace.  The common congregant knows little of their belief.  Who will tell them?  Certainly they won't learn it on their own.  People need teachers and pastors and elders--those who can teach them how the cross isn't supported by Americanism and selfishness.

Page 21

"...the message of American Christianity has simply become trivial, sentimental, affirming, and irrelevant."

We so long to give people what we think is good news.  We could be compared (quite easily) to the Pharisees who thought they were carrying the good news with them.  Their news was bondage to the law.  Our nice sayings and "relevant" messages of God's love aren't confronting people in their sin, showing them how inadequate they are as compared to a Holy God.  In other words, many seem to be floating through a "Christian walk" wondering if they really still need a savior or not.  Our soft words and glib conclusions don't carry the tone or the weight of scripture. We are walking by the beaten traveler--rather than reaching down with news that there is one who has rescued them--we take a seat next to them and strike up a conversation--and work to convince them that they aren't really that broken.  

Each of us is wretchedly desolate!  Each of us has no ability at all to respond to life--for we are replete with death.  Sin doesn't just trip us up, but it has closed all faculties that would communicate to us that we are dead.  Dead in our transgressions...objects of wrath (Eph 2).

It is only by Grace that we become privy to our state of shame.  There is nothing to affirm within us, except that we need a real savior...later Horton references this powerful scene from ER.

We need forgiveness and need a savior.  That savior is only found within the careful and complete teaching of scripture.  Horton elaborates:

Page 21

"I think our doctrine has been forgotten, assumed, ignored, and even misshaped and distorted by the habits and rituals of daily life in a narcissistic culture.  We are assimilating the disrupting and disorienting news from heaven to the banality of our own immediate felt needs, which interpret God as a personal shopper for the props of our life movie: happiness and entertainment, salvation as therapeutic well-being, and mission as pragmatic success measured solely in terms of numbers."

He is saying here what I have felt for a long time.  We need GOOD TEACHING and right doctrine!  We need truth!  Last night I was at  one of the great cultural rites of passage  we have--a high school graduation.  Our true cultural colors came shining through the whole event--we love to feel good!  Every speaker talked with such gooey positivism, one would think Utopia had been discovered and refined on their high school campus.  No one spoke what was true.  No one confronted real life.  It was all a mushy farewell and congrats...I am so glad our Savior bore real pain and shame to pay the price for my very real sin!

We don't need gooey good news!  We need the real Good News, which only comes in the context of the real bad news!  I am a sinner, saved by grace.  

Horton quotes Methodist bishop William Willimon:

Page 25

"In conservative contexts, gospel speech is traded for dogmatic assertion and moralism, for self-help psychologies and narcotic mantras.  In more liberal speech, talk tiptoes around the outrage of Christian discourse and ends up as an innocuous, though urbane, affirmation of the ruling order.  Unable to preach Christ and him crucified, we preach humanity and it improved."

Insightful.  I appreciate Horton's ability to raise the conversation above the din of the liberals vs. conservatives.  He is able to communicate how both "camps" have missed the mark and later describes how both have contributed to secularism and humanism.

Page 26

"Discipleship, spiritual disciplines, life transformation, culture transformation, relationships, marriage and family, stress, the spiritual gifts, financial gifts, radical experiences on conversion, end times curiosities that seem to have less to do with Christ's bodily return than with matching verses to newspaper headlines, and accounts of overcoming significant obstacles through the power of faith.  This is the steady diet we're getting today, and it is bound to burn us out because its all about us and our work rather than about Christ and his work.  Even important biblical exhortations and commands become dislocated from the indicative, gospel habitat.  Instead of the gospel giving us new thoughts, experiences, and a motivation for grateful obedience, we lodge the power of God in own piety and programs."

What would most churches do without the above?  Maybe we would rest on the sabbath?  Maybe we would have less burned out staff members?  Maybe laymen would more easily serve the community because we aren't demanding they serve every whim of the church?

Father, I ask you for great wisdom!

Christless Christianity #1

I have recently read Michael Horton's Christless Christianity and am going to post several thoughts here.  I am hopeful for some responses and perspectives.

In summation, Horton describes the American Church as rooted in the revivalism of the 19th and 20th centuries and the individualistic tendencies of American culture.  Although his chapters long and sometimes a bit of a ramble, I found his critique to be immensely insightful.

Here are some quotes from Chapter 1--and my thoughts.

Page 16-17

"I think that the church in America is so obsessed with being practical, relevant, helpful, successful, and perhaps even well-liked that it nearly mirrors with world itself.  Aside from the packaging, there is nothing that cannot be found in most churches that could not be satisfied by any number of secular programs and self-help groups."

The weight of trying to carry these programs of "help" is killing pastors and leaders.  As I approach the stage of life where I will be required to be a lead pastor, I am incredibly daunted by the expectation of American Christianity.  Horton goes on to make the point that we have lost our poignancy because we have traded the Good News for Good Works.  It becomes a painful indictment, but a relieving perspective that alleviates the demands of pragmatic programs.  Also, from my perspective, we increasingly are forgoing what it is we believe for the sake of what it is we might practice.  We so want to be relevant, but are forgetting the most relevant revelation of all--Jesus and Him Crucified.

Page 17

"Let me be a little more precise about what I am assuming to be the regular diet in many churches across America today: 'do more, try harder'...it can be exhibited in an older, more conservative form, with recurring emphasis on moral absolutes and warnings about falling into the pit of worldliness that can often make one wonder whether we are saved through fear rather than faith...At the same time, more liberal bodies could be just as shrill with their 'do more, try harder' list on the left and their weekly calls to action rather than clear proclamation of Christ."

Wow.  I would have never have thought in this way because my mindset is all about human response.  I am constantly concerned with my congregation's response and my own response to God's principles and directions.  As a preacher, I feel the strong need to make sure and give the listener's plenty to do after a message.  And, there is no doubt that we take up positions behind the conservative bunkers, hurling grenades at culture or rally our people to confront injustice.  

I know there is a place for both of these emphasis'--I think Horton's point is that the church isn't the hub of socio-political-moral-cultural change.  It exists for the proclamation of the Gospel.  For a long time I have tried to reconcile (through methodological ponderings) how to fit all of our proper responses into a church assembly and the programs of the church.  The task is enormous and as I observe it, when we have tried to pull together a comprehensive plan, it invaribly is disjointed.  Perhaps we have been trying to be God (as the Church).  

Horton further illustrates this human tendency (and American folly) of striving towards God:

Page 17

"...the do more, try harder message has still dominated--this time in the softer pastels of Al Franken's 'Stuart Smalley' than in the censorious tone of Dana Carvey's 'Church Lady,' both of Saturday Night Live fame.  In this version, God isn't upset if you fail to pull it off.  The stakes aren't as high: success or failure in this life, not heaven or hell.  No longer commands, the content of these sermons, songs and best-selling books are helpful suggestions.  If you can't people to be better with sticks, use carrots."

I have never heard the modern leniency and narcissism described through the lens of works.  I have long grown weary of the flaccid atmosphere of our culture, but honestly, my response has mostly revolved around reverting to a more legalistic "holy life."  Either extreme isn't the Gospel, and Horton's encouragement is to allow the church to be all about the gospel.

Page 18

"...the search for the sacred in America is largely oriented to what happens inside of us, in our personal experience, rather than in what God has done for us in history.  Even baptism and the Supper are described as 'means of commitment' rather than 'means of grace' in a host of contemporary systematic theologies by conservative as well as progressive evangelicals."

Over the past few years, I have grown weary of the subjective (and therefore non-contradict-able) nature of a personal relationship with Jesus.  Horton will go on to explain the Gnostic beginnings of such an inner claim later in the book.  In my own experience, our individualistic culture loves this sort of a relationship with God because it removes the "strain" and work of accountability.  God has given us two main outside sources of accountability--His Word and His Body (church).  Both the Word (doctrine) and the leadership of the Body have lost authority and ability to discipline and lead the saints.  

Horton further states:

Page 19

"My concern is that we are getting dangerously close to the place in everyday American church life where the Bible is mined for relevant quotes but is largely irrelevant on its own terms; God is used as a personal resource rather than known, worshiped, and trusted; Jesus Christ is a coach with a good game plan for our victory rather than a Savior who has already achieved it for us; salvation is more a matter of having our best life now than being saved from God's judgment by God himself; and the Holy Spirit is an electrical outlet we can plug into for the power we need to be all that we can be."

He says it well.  It is becoming all about US and we only want HIM for what he might do for US.

To be continued...