Gospel-Centered Idolatry

To either begin or end the gospel on the premise of "for man's sake," does not convey the proper knowledge of the One who does all things for His own sake. One may even sum up theology as Creation, Fall, Redemption and Restoration, and still fall short of the saving knowledge of God, for all of these can be construed in such a way that they center around man. Although all are necessary to be known, to center theology around the primary concern of where man fits into God's plan, neither glorfies God, as God, nor understands the gospel. Since the Object of saving faith is infinitely higher than ourselves, an obsession with ourselves and our good fortune in the gospel, can be neither the power nor the wisdom of the gospel.

Centering the message of the church around the indicatives that benefit man does not even rise to the level of the milk of the Word, as reflective of Paul's message given to the immature believers at Corinth. When addressing any individual ethical failure, Paul did not advise the Corinthians to reapply the indicative benefits and simply reflect on the gospel and the privileges that are now theirs in Christ, and then let everything work itself out passively. For this is what the Corinthians were already doing. Paul, far from encouraging them in God's love, favor and their secure state in Christ, warns them of the danger of false presumption; "wherefore let him that thinketh he stands take heed lest he fall." In the face of idolatry, his exhortation is to "flee", because idolatry in any form cannot be approached passively or indirectly, any more than God can be worshiped passively or indirectly alone. Those who make themselves their own idol will gladly make the gospel all about themselves. But if we take Corinth as a case study in the application of the gospel to immature believers, we will discover that the gospel-centered application to believers is more of a symptom and cause than the solution for spiritual immaturity.

The primary difference between the gospel for believers and unbelievers is that the perception of the forner is both objective and subjective, engaging both the head and the heart, while the message to the latter, until applied to the heart by the Spirit, is, of necessity, merely objective in nature. To center on the indicative, then, is a sign of neither regeneration nor spiritual maturity. While the message should be very simplistic for the unregenerate, one sign of spiritual maturity is to progress beyond milk to solid meat. This had not yet occured in the spiritual life of the Corinthians, as Paul writes,

"And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able."

Clearly, Paul is not refering to the gospel that the Crinthian have already received, but to the milk necessary to further murish those who have received spiritual life. The milk of the word that Paul delievered to the Corinthians was not a repeat of his first message to them, but something more. Paul speaks not in the same manner to all, but takes into account each one's spiritual capacity. Paul writes of his firth preaching at Corinth,

"I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ and Him crucified."

Paul could not speak unto the Corinthians as spiritual, and the solution he suggest in his long letter was not a repeat of the simple gospel, but the milk of the Word. Only in believers can the milk of the Word produce fruit, for only in the believer has the seed of the gospel taken root and been applied in the power of the Spirit; "I have planted, Appollos watered; but God gave the increase."

Offering an objective deliverance alone falls right into the desire of the false professor who does not want to proceed any further than his focus on what he may receive from religion. The focus on a purely indicative message limits religion to what he wants. As the basis of the Christian life, the gospel does apply to the believer. But when gospel-centered theology utilizes the same indicatve message to the lost as the primary message for the saved, it not only reveals theological immaturity, but directly affirms that no new principle and spiritual vision has been imparted in the soul of the believer but that which may interest both the unregenerate and the false professor. Hence, in this scheme, there is no reason to distinguish between the gospel message and the milk or meat of the Word, for no such distinction exist. The same message applies to all. The believer is simply in need of certain facts and assurances of safety and God's love that the indicatives provide.

When the suposed goodness of objective favors received become the passive power to spiritual transformation, the power to change is indirectly applied based on the benefits received. The working out of ones salvation, then, would simply be to assure oneself of God's love and one's high privileges. But it is percisely because He works in the believer to will and to do of His good pleasure that outside consideration, while supportive, are the source of neither the desire nor the power for change. While the outside and indirect method of considering God's great love does affect and inflame the affections of true believers, it does not hold the reins of the power to effect change. It is idolatrous to make the consideration of oneself the determining factor to effect ongoing change in religion. For the gospel is not a glass in which man beholds himself and becomes the center. It is more properly the instrument of the Spirit that directly shines forth the light of the glory of God in the face of Christ Jesus.

Whereas, a mere transactional Christianity would encourage us to recognize that we are all idolaters in heart and life, and, as a reflection of genuine humility, we should cling to our right standing in Christ to the glory of God, Paul, in the case of the Corinthians, would advise to the contrary: "Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall."

Preferred benefits that are reprioritized to point primarily to the advantage and good of self is self-idolatry. If there is any entitlement in the gospel, it is not that we deserve grace, but that He deserves worship. If the gospel teaches anything, it teaches that Christ is entitled to worship and we are not entitled to grace. How, then, can we become the center of the gospel, but out of our blindness to His glory? Unless the glory of Christ has shined in the heart, one is still blinded by the greater value he sees in himself. Such blindness will view God's wisdom displayed in a salvation that comes without power, but it will only be a salvation for us, not in us. It is this latter salvation that is necessary to counter self-idolatry in the heart. An objective deliverance for us is insufficient to take down our biggest idol, because it is not grace shown to us but grace powerfully exerted in us that performs this subjective work. Why did Paul cry out, "that I might know Him"? Was this a mere expression of gratitude for mercies recieved, or does this also reflect a newfound value for the person of Christ above any personal benefit?