Les Newsom, Faith and Receiving

lesnewsom's picture

IMG_9356  My impression is that faithful readers of Common Grounds Online do not suffer from any want of critique from the more fundamentalistic strains of evangelicalism still dominating the religious experience of so many in America today. For most of us, the pendulum is still swinging quite in the opposite direction without too much help, thank you very much. Yet a recent Saturday morning children’s devotional I attended warrants some comment.

Halftime at my 9-year-old daughter’s basketball league is given to “devotional time,” due to the fact, I assume, that she plays in a church league. The speaker opened his message by holding a pen out in the palm of his hand. “Who would like to have this pen? It’s a free pen and anyone who wants it this morning can have it.” It took a minute or so before someone mercifully played along and walked up to take the free pen.

“You see,” he explained, “that’s exactly what the Gospel is. It’s free and it’s available. But you don’t have it until you receive it. And once you’ve received it, you need to use it.”

Again, my intention is not to nitpick what was likely a kindly volunteer at a simply country church function. Rather, the comment revived my recent quest to identify the nature and practice of this most fundamental of Christian acts: believing. The message of the Gospel, we were told growing up, was not activated in the life until it was “received” and “believed.”

My question for the gentleman speaker last weekend is simply this: when presented in this way, how do you avoid making faith meritorious? The gift of the Gospel exists, as it were, outside of me prior to my conversion. What releases the effects of that gift into my life is the simple act of “receiving and believing.” So then how is faith not a condition of salvation? How is salvation “free” if it costs me an act of reception in order to enjoy its effects?

My intention is not to launch into an explanation here, but merely to offer some observations. First, the sensations associated with the act of believing are painfully hard to define in that world. The descriptions believers give of the event usually end up being marked by some vague inward impression that they are in fact feeling positively towards the speaker’s message. They agree with them. They like what they are hearing. They are willing to go ahead with the emotional transaction, albeit with wildly undefined currency.

Second, one of the near results of this kind of thinking is that is places the directional compass of salvation on the self and not on Jesus. Faith has got to be faith in Jesus, not faith in my faith. Therefore, the act of believing, if considered in the context of the Christian’s larger story, must have the net result of causing me to focus less on my self and more on Jesus. Self-absorbed Christianity should be a contradiction in terms.

Finally, my suspicion is that this confusion is due to the fact that a fully Biblical consideration of faith cannot be separated from its spiritual flip-side, repentance. Faith and repentance are regularly spoken of together in Christian spiritual theology. Why? I suspect because there is no turning TO when there has not been a turning FROM.

That is to say, repentance leads me to despair of myself, to stop focusing on my ability to do anything about my current spiritual state, to drop my arms helplessly at my side and admit that I am powerless before my addictions, broken but for his grace. Ironically, this painful, Spirit-created admission with its attendant posture towards God, my neighbor, and myself IS the very posture of believing. I am in fact believing when I own this truth about myself: that I am a sinner, that I am needy, that I am hungry.

Horatius Bonar, in his little book, God's Way of Peace, describes the absurdity of a man who insists that he doesn’t know how to believe as being like “a man wearied with a journey, and is not able to go one step farther, [and says] ‘I am so tired that I am not able to lie down,’ when indeed he can neither stand nor go. The poor wearied sinner can never believe in Jesus Christ until he finds he can do nothing for himself.”

Thank you for this post. I

Thank you for this post. I remember sitting in Army chapels where evangelical chaplains, with the best of intentions, would give "invitations," talking about how salvation was "all of grace," and then mentioning that " now this is what you have to do" to move God. Hello! There is a disconnect here, isn't there?

This is something I've been

This is something I've been thinking about a lot lately. It's a tricky thing, isn't it? "Accepting Christ" is deeply embedded in much of evangelical theology, but is it really Biblical? At what point are we making *acceptance* into a work, and therefore denying grace? I understand the impulse. We want to give people a chance to confess Christ (Rom. 10:9), and we also want some way to explain that God isn't capricious, just choosing people willy-nilly--so we make it a gift God gives everyone that only some accept. These are legitimate concerns, but I'm not sure that the theology of "accepting Christ" is the best solution, at least not as it's currently taught in many churches.

This mentality and message is

This mentality and message is part of the general loss of the Gospel in Arminian, Finny-ite, easy-believism... and some more labels of popular evangelicalism.
Regards the first point in a person "feeling" some kind of non-descript general agreement. This is not a great deal different from Roman Catholicism's identity of faith simply with 'assent.'
Regards the second point the focus is not on Christ who is mighty to save, because there has been no presentation of who God is nor of the sinners utterly desperate condition. We are awash in the democratization of Christianity. Man may be effected by sin but in their view, not to the extent that they really incapable of responding at any time to the Gospel -- hence there is no immediacy, no urgency to the Gospel call. And further, God becomes the butler who must come when we call!
Regards the last point -- Repentance is wholly missing since this involves as well submission to Christ as Lord. And as so many of us were taught in the general vanilla para-church organizations, 'following Christ as Lord' or discovering the Spirit-led life, was for those who wanted a further commitment, but was not involved in the requirement of the Gospel itself.
How we need a return to the full orbed Gospel of Reformed Confessionalism. May Christ grant such a revival soon.

Yes, Les, to so much of what

Yes, Les, to so much of what you write. I love the quote from Horatius Bonar. (What would I do without his hymns?) It is easy to criticize the youth pastor's simplication of the Gospel without, apparently, context. But meritorious? If so, what do we do with all the commands of Scripture, beginning with the clear words of our Savior, "The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand; repent and believe the Gospel." (Mark 1:15) Is it meritorious to obey? We are called to obey, to choose to believe. If God has not made us responsible, the commands and exhortations are without meaning. We should go on our merry way until God arrests us with His grace. Is that Biblical? I must respond; I must believe and obey. And when I do, I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it was ALL given, even the timing, given in unfathomable grace. I can do nothing of myself. So how it can it be meritorious? On that we agree.
Lois

Again, the kingdom of heaven

Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it. (Mt 13:45-46)
Hi, Les. An additional problem with analogies like these is that they focus on the mechanics of the transaction and lose sight of the magnitude of the gift. One's "decision," no matter how pure in motive, is not commensurate with what's being offered: a Kingdom that both promises more and requires more of one than one is able to humanly assent. Only the Spirit can drive and sustain the faith that would lead to such a "decision."