New Warhorn Media post by Tim Bayly:
⌠and, âFor mere improvement is not redemption, though redemption always improves people even here and now and will, in the end, improve them to a degree we cannot yet imagineâ. CS Lewis, Mere Christianity. Somewhere along the way, too many people seem to be settling for âmere improvementâ - Christian nationalists and woke progressive Christians alike.
3 Likes
Do you see any connection in the prevalence of talk about âhuman flourishingâ and also âbroken theologyâ? By âbroken theologyâ I mean calling manâs problem âbrokennessâ and his need âhealingâ. People are viewed emotionally, physically, financially, and spiritually broken and they need to be healed, restored, and made whole by God.
EDIT: For some contextâŚIn June 2019 the SBC passed the controversial Resolution 9 pertaining to Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality. I began paying more attention to my denominationâs annual meeting in 2020 during COVID lockdowns and realized that I had seen the fruits CRT and Intersectionality in January of 2019 in an SBC urban ministry training. It was packaged with language such as - brokenness, flourishing, âgospel-centeredâ, âmissionalâ. The solution to the âmarginalization, victimhoodâ was a âfullâ or âwholeâ gospel, that addressed âemotional, physical, financialâ needs too in the here and now. I now think it presented as a modernized âsocial gospelâ.
Also, do you think the rise in that âgospelâ and emphasis on human âflourishingâ to be a reason for the lack of the fear of God in our day? About that time the Fear of God became only âreverenceâ, a word no one could clearly define. And people would call God âdaddyâ but not Judge.
When Iâd hear âhuman flourishingâ being advocated as an overlooked point of Jesusâ ministry, it always smelled like repackaged social gospel talking points. At the very least it would be something that would sell books to scratch ears.
Itâs as though whether talking of brokenness or flourishing, the Providence of God in afflicting or disciplining a believer is never a thought. And focus on repenting of sins and believing in Jesus who died on cross and rose from the dead is lost.
Jason,
Flourishing is a biblical metaphor for the spiritual and physical prosperity redemption brings, and brokenness is also a biblical metaphor for the spiritual and physical deprivation sin brings. The problems with these ideas is not that theyâre not biblical. They so clearly are.
The problem is that squishy Reformedish Evangelicalism has a bad habit of over emphasising new or attractive ideas, and doing so at the expense of other important biblical ideas. Flourishing and brokenness language has become popular because it can be used in a soft, ear-scratching sort of way. They are easier on the soul than sanctification and sin. Many in our day use flourishing in place of a full theology of repentance and brokenness in place of a robust doctrine of depravity. It is wicked to do so.
But it would be a mistake to respond by abandoning these ideas, however poorly theyâre being used right now.
First, because they are biblical. Look at Psalm 144 or Revelation 21-22 or even Genesis 1-2. I know of no better word to describe the state of Godâs people in these scriptural descriptions than flourishing. Or consider Psalm 73-74 or Lamentations or the gospel story of the woman with the issue of blood. Surely the faithful are experiencing, among other things, the absolute brokenness of life in a sin-cursed and futile word.
Second, our theology will become brittle or crusty if we reject biblical ideas simply because theyâre over-used. And in doing so, our theology will also become sub-biblical, ironically, a sort of ear-scratching as well, just for jaundiced types. Pastors must understand that this world is broken and breaks people in addition to their understanding that our sin corrupts us and by it we corrupt others. Both are true. A pastor who cannot understand brokenness will inevitably be a pastor who lacks compassion for Christâs sheep, and that is something Christ has promised who judge severely. And flourishing? Godâs word isnât only true, itâs also good and beautiful. We do not only preach to minds, we also preach to wills and affections. We minister to whole beings (body, mind, will, and affections) - that mattes to our practical theology. The biblical concept of flourishing can point to how attractive living Godâs way is to Godâs people. Again, itâs not the only motivation, but itâs an obviously biblical one.
There is a tendency among conservative Christians to not only compensate for bad theology, but to overcompensate at the expense of good theology. Hyper-calvinism restricted the free offer of the gospel because of the spread of Armininianism and Socininianism. It was still wicked to do so. Fundamentalism restricted the enjoyment of Godâs good gifts to his people because of the spread of materialism and indulgence. It was also wicked to do so. And both, ironically, created even more of the things they hated in the wake of their overcorrection. Itâs no coincidence Rob Bell came to popularity in the epicentre of Dutch Reformed Grand Rapids. And who do you think put Tim Keller on the NYT Best-Sellers list? Not secular New Yorkers but Christians, a large percentage of whom were ârecoveringâ fundamentalists.
By all means, letâs be discerning in our theology and the buzz words we attach ourselves to. But letâs also remember Scripture nowhere calls us to be hipsters, rejecting something simply because itâs popular or attaching inherent value to unpopularity. We are shepherds, not Statler and Waldorf. Letâs be equally discerning of our own responses and not jettison patently biblical theology simple because itâs misused. Our preaching must be the whole counsel of God, including the bits that we find unpalatable.
5 Likes
Agreed, strongly! Your point about over-compensation and overshoot is key, remembering the principle that every Christian truth will be accompanied by two equal and opposite errors.
[EDIT]
On a related note, as this affects our evangelism. As much as we need to preach the Law, we live in the sort of culture - and this especially applies in the UK - where a lot of our religious language is not understood in the wider culture in the way it was a hundred years ago. How do we get round that?
Hi Aaron,
Thanks for the reply. Trying to type my original post without a computer/laptop didnât go well. I added an Edit for some context.
Also, I appreciated your points. I actually think weâre mostly in agreement.
Iâm definitely not advocating a trade of one over-emphasis for another over-emphasis. We must preach the whole counsel of God to the whole man.
Pastors must understand that âthe faithful are experiencing, among other things, the absolute brokenness of life in a sin-cursed and futile wordâ and show compassion.
I donât want to abandon what Scripture teaches. I also wouldnât advocate rejecting a biblical idea because of âover-useâ.
Is there a point when youâd say the words âbrokennessâ and âflourishingâ are no longer helpful, but the truths in Scripture are helpful? Where youâd retain the biblical understanding that the world is full of evil, disease, relational conflict, death, sin - but you wouldnât call it âbrokennessâ?
Iâm not sure. Early 20th century liberalism over-emphasised the fatherhood of GodâŚwell, not the biblical fatherhood of God, but a pastiche fatherhood of God. Would it have been helpful to minimise the use of âfatherhoodâ language because of othersâ misuse of them? I donât think so.
Definitely wouldnât encourage the trendy use of these words every second sentence in a sermon, but not sure we need to memory-hole the words either. And whatâs more my concern, if we reject the unbiblical assumptions behind the misuse of these concepts, we need to work even harder to make sure we emphasise the biblical use of these concepts, as our penchant for reactionaryism could push us to an equal but opposite unbiblical extreme. Weâre already going to avoid these words just because of our own distaste with the excesses. But letâs not overdo it.
In other words, just because the Gospel Coalition used âbrokennessâ and âflourishingâ badly, that doesnât justify our neglecting Christâs sheep through a needlessly brittle or hardnosed pastoral care, which could happen if we arenât aware of our own frustration with the issues.
2 Likes